Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Mr.T wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Paul Dormer wrote: "Arny Krueger" emitted : My tolerance for time-matching PCABC samples is +/- 1 millisecond to be sure that the echo effects I mentioned elsehwere will be avoided. Oh.. re-hehe-ally Mr Krueger. So by what method do you *guarantee* this time syncronisation between samples? PCABX. OK. So what audio programming interface does your program tap into, huh? Since you're the one making global claims here Dormer, you tell me. AFAIK it's not possible to *guarantee* a responsiveness in the 1ms range, let alone 10ms, without adopting a combination of specific technology, software, driver and hardware. Please provide a formal definition of "responsiveness". Have you have rewritten the Windows platform? In my tests, XP does the job. Feel free to prove me wrong with a reliable technical test. Answer the above first. Since you're the one making global claims here Dormer, you tell me. Pretty non responsive Arny. Dormer is blowing smoke, and we both know it. Even a single sample time misalignment can cause a glitch. (or maybe even desensitisation :-) Says who? One sample time is 22 microseconds. That's about 500 times smaller than the 10 millisecond delays that I'm talking about. I think Pauls wondering how you switch between two wave files in Windows, and maintain single sample accuracy? I never claimed single sample accuracy. Surely that's not an unreasonable question? It's 500 times too unreasonable, as I just showed. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Probably something to do with the accepted time standards being familiar. Only days, months and years are familiar, everything else is a convenient multiple or division. Hours, minutes and seconds are a weird perversion! Better look up "familiar" in the dictionary. Anyone over the age of 5 is *VERY* familiar with hours, minutes and seconds, however they came about. They are only 'familiar' with their existence, not with their origin. Read it again, I never said the history was familiar. You never mentioned their origin. Why bring up red herrings now? MrT. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... According to Wikipedia: "Early compact disc prototypes produced by Philips were 115 mm in diameter, with a 14 bit resolution and a 60 minute capacity. Sony insisted on a 16 bit resolution and 74 minute capacity, which increased the size of the disc to 120 mm. The reason for the increase in capacity is often rumored to be to hold even the slowest versions of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, though this has never been verified." So in fact CD *was* first designed to have a 60-minute capacity, and the disc was originally a very odd size because of this. It would make more sense, except the math seems wrong unless the track pitch was different too. Thankfully they got the bit rate right. MrT. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... In real life we don't compare the sound quality of audio products. Are you saying that this means that we should never compare the sound quality of audio products? In real life we *DO* compare the sound quality of audio products, just as they are used in real life. We also make measurements which are different. Sue me for trying to do the best possible comparisons of audio products. Why should I care? As I said... Your choice. I don't have to go anyplace to dispute a test like yours that has many inherent flaws. That does indeed seem to be the case. We have then shown that the reviews in ragazines like Stereophile are bogus. See, we agree. There is a benefit. The benefit is that tests done under the most sensitive conditions, that still produce negative outcomes, are more convincing. And still fail to convince the sceptics, but fine by me. 50-100 mSec pauses don't seem to hurt listener sensitivity very much. OK, now were getting somewhere. Fact is that many people are true believers in the global existance of audible differences, and no amount of evidence will change their minds. Which is what I said all along. MrT. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... The story I heard said that the drive had to fit into a DIN-sized car radio. Then the disk could have been over 5 inches if they wanted. You have to include a reasonable allowance for the mechanism. Yep it does. Unless the disk is a fair bit more than 5 inches. A DIN sized radio is bigger than a CDROM drive. MrT. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Mr.T wrote: If you want to compare equipment - then do the best possible job of testing equipment. Agreed, with TEST equipment! But the real world meaning of test equipment results is not as clear as the meaning of a listening test. Not IMO. The meaning of your Lynx 2 tests is a LOT clearer than any listening on my part could determine!! The meaning of test equipment results is not as clear to most people as the results of a good listening test. Not IMO. The meaning of your Lynx 2 tests is a LOT clearer than any listening on my part could determine!! Now we argue over what defines most people :-) Regardless, those with no knowledge will not be impressed by your tests either. No such thing can exist because CD players are limited to 16 bits, while the Lynx2 and its superior sucessors are not limited to 16 bits. OK I should have said CD/SACD/DVDA/whatever comes next. I think that a worthwhile segement of the audiophile community have had their opinons affected by the results of ABX-type listening tests. www.pcabx.com still gets a lot of use, people are still downloading files. I sense that there has been a shift of opinon away from audio products that many of us have long known are snake oil. I'm glad you think so. Mike Moore was convinced GWB was a one term president too. Perception doesn't always match reality. Which is what you are trying to prove after all :-) I'm trying to convincingly show that even under the most ideal circumstances, the differences whose existence and purported importance are promoted by snake oil merchants, simply can't be heard. And I agree, but find a simpler test with actual equipment often has more effect on the untrained. People who already agree with you don't need convincing. MrT. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Even a single sample time misalignment can cause a glitch. (or maybe even desensitisation :-) Says who? One sample time is 22 microseconds. That's about 500 times smaller than the 10 millisecond delays that I'm talking about. If you think 2 discontinuous samples CAN'T cause an audible glitch, I suggest you try it in Audition. I think Pauls wondering how you switch between two wave files in Windows, and maintain single sample accuracy? I never claimed single sample accuracy. OK, so there is a possible test procedure problem :-) It's 500 times too unreasonable, as I just showed. Not at all, you are the one who insists the method must be perfect, then ignore other errors. MrT. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Mr.T wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... The story I heard said that the drive had to fit into a DIN-sized car radio. Then the disk could have been over 5 inches if they wanted. You have to include a reasonable allowance for the mechanism. Yep it does. Unless the disk is a fair bit more than 5 inches. A DIN sized radio is bigger than a CDROM drive. Yes, and there are reasons why. For example CDROM faceplates are almost exactly the same size as the drive case, while DIN radios have small bezels, but bezels nonetheless. A car is a much more hostile mechanical environment than a PC, etc. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Mr.T wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Mr.T wrote: If you want to compare equipment - then do the best possible job of testing equipment. Agreed, with TEST equipment! But the real world meaning of test equipment results is not as clear as the meaning of a listening test. Not IMO. The meaning of your Lynx 2 tests is a LOT clearer than any listening on my part could determine!! Can you, from the measurements tell me how many times you can pass audio through a Lynx2 before it's effects will be audible? I can do that with a PCABX listening test. No such thing can exist because CD players are limited to 16 bits, while the Lynx2 and its superior sucessors are not limited to 16 bits. OK I should have said CD/SACD/DVDA/whatever comes next. The Lynx2 outperforms just about any real-world recording of music, as well as the instantaneous dynamic range of the human ear. According to one well-known authority, after a system has 100 dB or more dynamic range, it's left the ears and just about everything else in the real world in the dust. |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Mr.T wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Even a single sample time misalignment can cause a glitch. (or maybe even desensitisation :-) Says who? One sample time is 22 microseconds. That's about 500 times smaller than the 10 millisecond delays that I'm talking about. If you think 2 discontinuous samples CAN'T cause an audible glitch, I suggest you try it in Audition. I'm quite sure it can, but my goal at switch-over is not to eliminate audible glitches. In fact I claim that a bounded audible glitch is a good idea. It just needs to remain either very the same, or truely random. I think Pauls wondering how you switch between two wave files in Windows, and maintain single sample accuracy? I never claimed single sample accuracy. OK, so there is a possible test procedure problem :-) It's 500 times too unreasonable, as I just showed. Not at all, you are the one who insists the method must be perfect, then ignore other errors. The trick is to know what matters, and what doesn't, and how much. One can learn that through experience. |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.tech Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Colin B." wrote in message ... If you can prove the non-audibility of differences between two components (CD players, amps, preamps, cables, etc.) under the most idealised, revealing circumstances possible (instant switching) then you have _conclusively_ proven that you won't find any day-to-day differences. Our hearing memory is poor, flawed, and susceptible to too many external factors. Instantaneous switching is the only way to prove the non-audibility of any differences between the two items in the test. What you're trying to do is prove the audiblity of the differences, and you're doing it by adding complicating factors rather than eliminating them. Yes, I understand that. However I believe the complicating factor is trying to get ***perfect*** time sync between two different players. Even a couple of samples can cause a glitch, no need to have enough for an echo. For Arny's software/computer wave solution, then it's not so hard. Once you have established no statistical certainty of selection there, then it is easier to demonstrate to those who will always argue that you are not using the actual players, to do what they require. Here's the thing. If I hear a time sync-induced glitch between two CD players that I can pick out consistently and reproducibly, then there's no telling if the players actually sound the same or not. I've proven a difference in sound that may (or may not) be due to the time sync problem. Same with level matching. If I can reliably pick out a difference between players when all of these complicating factors have been eliminated, then there is actually an audible difference in the outputs of the two players. That's what I'm trying to find. If it is easy to show even a 1 second pause eliminates identification, then why bother arguing any further? You have just agreed that it is impossible to tell under normal listening, and isn't that what people buy CD players for? You're right. From one day to another, you probably couldn't consistently pick out the difference between any two components (except speakers), so really we should all be using Fisher all-in-one stereos. If I'm going to buy a CD player, I would like to know if the higher end one is audibly different (and one would hope, superior). If it is, then fine. If not, then I have to decide if I want a nicer box for the same sound. If the two methods disagreed on result, we would have a problem. However they don't appear to. I'd say they quite often disagree. Your test can allow for false positives (believing there's a difference in the reproduction when it's time or level matching problems) as well as false negatives (after a ten second delay, you may not be able to hear a proven difference). The careful syncing and matching of signals and instantaneous switching eliminates both of these problems. You're looking for 'good enough as makes no effective difference.' Arny is looking for 'No audible differences at all.' Both of these are valid, but ***they're not the same thing.*** Colin |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:01:13 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . According to Wikipedia: "Early compact disc prototypes produced by Philips were 115 mm in diameter, with a 14 bit resolution and a 60 minute capacity. Sony insisted on a 16 bit resolution and 74 minute capacity, which increased the size of the disc to 120 mm. The reason for the increase in capacity is often rumored to be to hold even the slowest versions of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, though this has never been verified." So in fact CD *was* first designed to have a 60-minute capacity, and the disc was originally a very odd size because of this. It would make more sense, except the math seems wrong unless the track pitch was different too. Thankfully they got the bit rate right. Who did, Philips or Sony? They both used the same sample rate, so I presume you're referring to bit depth. Vinyl on the best day of its life might be a fraction over 12 bits, so what's wrong with 14 bits? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Colin B. wrote:
You're looking for 'good enough as makes no effective difference.' Arny is looking for 'No audible differences at all.' Both of these are valid, but ***they're not the same thing.*** Good summary. |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
In , on 04/12/05 at 06:10 AM, "Arny Krueger" said: Mr.T wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... If you want to listen to music - listen to music. If you want to compare equipment - then do the best possible job of testing equipment. Agreed, with TEST equipment! [ ... In an attempt to be brief and kind, some dialog was chopped ] I'm trying to convincingly show that even under the most ideal circumstances, the differences whose existence and purported importance are promoted by snake oil merchants, simply can't be heard. Implied in this thread's "heat" are a couple points worth discussing. First, is there a proven, tight correleation between the test instrument "numbers" and the listening jury's opinion? I don't recall the that the standard tests (THD+N, IMD, response flatness, etc) were developed with any particular aural perception model in mind. It was mostly what was practical to design at the time. The usual tests are static, but music is dynamic. This is what caused so much trouble in the 60's and 70's. Many designers were missing slew based problems because the design math to deal with them was messy (or unknown -- because they slept through that class) and the standard tests didn't highlight slew based junk. Distortion was going down and down, but in many cases, the result was sounding uglier and uglier. True, we have some more interesting, somewhat more expensive tests now, but they are not mainstream and we have no proof that they cover all the bases. Second, how far can we generalize the listening jury's opinion? Let's consider two CD players or two Tuners. In my experience it is common for tuners and CD players to have some sort of high frequency leakage. (19 KHz leakage is very common for stereo Tuners and I commonly see leakage above 16KHz in respected CD players) While there is the obvious risk of intermodulation products, young ears might directly percieve the tones, while older ears may not. I've experienced many examples of CD players and Tuners that will bug me after a while, for no reason that I can explicitly point to. There'll be some discomfort, almost pain, or a hard to pinpoint mood change. If I thow these offending units on the bench I'll see some high frequency junk. Should we start "age rating" the listening test? (ABX-16, ABX-30 ... ABX-60) What if one of the units under test has an acousticlly noisy switching power supply? How will the noisy unit influence the jury's opinion of the quiet unit? (the power supply noise would not be present if the quiet unit was out on its own) Someone in close proximity to the unit might hear the switch noise while someone farther away may not. A 38KHz leak from a tuner may drive a wideband THD measurement crazy. While few of us could hear it directly, it could cause some intermodulation products in some amplifiers. In this situation the listening outcome could depend on the amplifier used, but it was not the device under test. --- What's my point? There will always be surprises. One should not blindly accept the listening or analytical tests as being the absolute, final word. ----------------------------------------------------------- spam: wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15 13 (Barry Mann) [sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox] ----------------------------------------------------------- |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Barry Mann wrote:
First, is there a proven, tight correleation between the test instrument "numbers" and the listening jury's opinion? Nope. Test equipment results are indicators and diagnostic tools, but they aren't universal predictors of sound quality. I don't recall the that the standard tests (THD+N, IMD, response flatness, etc) were developed with any particular aural perception model in mind. The best perception models that help predict the audibility of distortion came later. Frequency response and nonlinear distortion measurements were developed in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Our best current models of human perception were still developing rapidly in the late 1980s. It was mostly what was practical to design at the time. The usual tests are static, but music is dynamic. Not true. Music is just a collection of modulated sine waves. This is what caused so much trouble in the 60's and 70's. Many designers were missing slew based problems because the design math to deal with them was messy (or unknown -- because they slept through that class) and the standard tests didn't highlight slew based junk. Not true. A pure sine wave test tone at an appropriate frequency is a fine test for slew-rate related problems. Slew Induced Distortion is readily measured with high frequency twin-tone IM tests based on continous pure sine waves. Distortion was going down and down, but in many cases, the result was sounding uglier and uglier. Ironically, many of the pieces of equipment that were indicted for this actually do pretty well in blind tests. True, we have some more interesting, somewhat more expensive tests now, but they are not mainstream and we have no proof that they cover all the bases. Actually we do. There are only two kinds of distortion - nonlinear and linear. We can measure either to our heart's content and with insanely high levels of precision and accuracy. Second, how far can we generalize the listening jury's opinion? If a player causes problems with program material known to tax its capabilities, then it is also likely to cause problems as it is used to play a wide variety of common music. Let's consider two CD players or two Tuners. In my experience it is common for tuners and CD players to have some sort of high frequency leakage. I don't know about the tuners, but CD players have brick wall filters at 22 KHz. In modern players those are generally very good. (19 KHz leakage is very common for stereo Tuners and I commonly see leakage above 16KHz in respected CD players) Name a *respected*CD player with a lot of leakage about 16 KHz. I've tested a lot of mid-fi and poorer CD players, and they are pretty clean. The bandpass of my tests is 100 KHz. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Sorry mate, the attribution in Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land' greatly predates the Internet jape. As with the Gospel of St Thomas, and the real story of Mary Magdalene, this is clearly another example of the Church attempting to suppress the truth - that it is only idiots who believe what it says in the Bible.............. But what about the 11th Commandment? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message ... People who already agree with you don't need convincing. Not if you haven't yet swallowed your daily dose of Kroo****. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 06:08:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Barry Mann wrote: First, is there a proven, tight correleation between the test instrument "numbers" and the listening jury's opinion? Nope. Test equipment results are indicators and diagnostic tools, but they aren't universal predictors of sound quality. Ahhhh, Arnold fininally coming arund to realize that the bull**** that he's been spouting all of these years is built on crumbling sand. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
In , on 04/13/05
at 06:08 AM, "Arny Krueger" said: Barry Mann wrote: [ ... ] It was mostly what was practical to design at the time. The usual tests are static, but music is dynamic. Not true. Music is just a collection of modulated sine waves. Got me there, hard to deal with discontinuities are an artifact of our mathematical tools and can't occur in nature. However, near impulses such as a drum stick hit are problems just the same. But the test signals are stationary. In the days when vacuum tubes were king, we routinely applied square waves and talked about that awful tilt and ringing. Once amplifier output transformers were eliminated and most things were direct coupled, the square wave pictures became too tame and uninteresting. On the other hand, we (the industry) are reluctant to expose too much to the public. The old amplifier square wave tests were perfect. They were easily explainable (by the sales staff and to the public), observable, demonstrable, and measurable differences between amplifiers. Higher priced units usually had friendlier square wave pictures and the world was fair. Throw square waves at anything other than simple amplifiers and things get ugly, stay ugly and are much harder to explain to the public. [note to sales people -- while you shouldn't attempt this with every John and Jane who pass by, a good explanation to those who are interested will bond that customer to you for life. Unfortunately, it can take a bit of time if they've never had or forgot their calculus.] Now that prices for computer power have plummeted and decent, relatively affordable D/A, A/D are available, we should revisit the idea of using impulses to test audio gear. This is what caused so much trouble in the 60's and 70's. Many designers were missing slew based problems because the design math to deal with them was messy (or unknown -- because they slept through that class) and the standard tests didn't highlight slew based junk. Not true. A pure sine wave test tone at an appropriate frequency is a fine test for slew-rate related problems. Slew Induced Distortion is readily measured with high frequency twin-tone IM tests based on continous pure sine waves. Yes, but they are not quite routine. By routine I mean available in an affordable mass produced instrument. At the moment two tone tests are mostly a lash-up. The PC based simulations are in the process of changing that dynamic. And single tone tests can be interpreted in a way that implies slew based problems, but that "interpretation" does not yield repeatable numbers. Anyone who has spent some time running THD+N and SMPTE IM distortion tests begins to acquire an ability to pick units that might be interesting to listen to by observing the distortion residual trace. Unfortunately, its more art than science because we haven't developed any system of applying metrics to our observations. Distortion was going down and down, but in many cases, the result was sounding uglier and uglier. Ironically, many of the pieces of equipment that were indicted for this actually do pretty well in blind tests. Our understanding of the aural process is evolving. We are still searching for that ultimate "number" that correlates well with the jury. A combination of the traditional numbers and the results of a two tone test are a step in right direction. True, we have some more interesting, somewhat more expensive tests now, but they are not mainstream and we have no proof that they cover all the bases. Actually we do. There are only two kinds of distortion - nonlinear and linear. We can measure either to our heart's content and with insanely high levels of precision and accuracy. Our body's aural processing system obediently follows our simple mathematical abstractions? Second, how far can we generalize the listening jury's opinion? If a player causes problems with program material known to tax its capabilities, then it is also likely to cause problems as it is used to play a wide variety of common music. For what percentage of the population (jury)? Should we break that population into audiophile and non audiophile segments. (call them trained and untrained if you like) Let's consider two CD players or two Tuners. In my experience it is common for tuners and CD players to have some sort of high frequency leakage. I don't know about the tuners, but CD players have brick wall filters at 22 KHz. In modern players those are generally very good. Unless something sneaks around the filter. 22K? What's all the fuss about over sampling? The marketing hype (and the math) leads one to believe that "brick wall" causes phase funnies at the top of the band. Oversampling relaxes the need for reconstruction brick wall filters so close to the pass band. [ ... ] ----------------------------------------------------------- spam: wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15 13 (Barry Mann) [sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox] ----------------------------------------------------------- |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Barry Mann wrote: I don't know about the tuners, but CD players have brick wall filters at 22 KHz. In modern players those are generally very good. 22K? What's all the fuss about over sampling? The marketing hype (and the math) leads one to believe that "brick wall" causes phase funnies at the top of the band. No. Most of the DSP-implemented brick-wall filters have very tiny amount of phase shift in the passband. Typical contemporary implementations keep the phase error within +-5 degrees up to 20 kHz. Oversampling relaxes the need for reconstruction brick wall filters so close to the pass band. No, they don't. Oversampling eliminates the need to implement the Nyquist filtering in the analog domain, which is really hard to do right, but they do not eliminate the need for a brick-wall reconstruction filter at just below Fs/2. It's a lot more convenient with a lot more flexibility to implement it in the digital domain via oversampling techniques, to be sure. Whence the very flat frequency and phase response you see in typical implementations. |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Barry Mann wrote:
In , on 04/13/05 at 06:08 AM, "Arny Krueger" said: Barry Mann wrote: [ ... ] It was mostly what was practical to design at the time. The usual tests are static, but music is dynamic. Not true. Music is just a collection of modulated sine waves. Got me there, hard to deal with discontinuities are an artifact of our mathematical tools and can't occur in nature. However, near impulses such as a drum stick hit are problems just the same. Problems for what? But the test signals are stationary. Until you do different tests for different things... In the days when vacuum tubes were king, we routinely applied square waves and talked about that awful tilt and ringing. Once amplifier output transformers were eliminated and most things were direct coupled, the square wave pictures became too tame and uninteresting. I've never put much stock in square wave tests. Something about square waves and sine waves sounding the same above 8 KHz. Now that prices for computer power have plummeted and decent, relatively affordable D/A, A/D are available, we should revisit the idea of using impulses to test audio gear. Been there, done that. Yawn. This is what caused so much trouble in the 60's and 70's. Many designers were missing slew based problems because the design math to deal with them was messy (or unknown -- because they slept through that class) and the standard tests didn't highlight slew based junk. Not true. A pure sine wave test tone at an appropriate frequency is a fine test for slew-rate related problems. Slew Induced Distortion is readily measured with high frequency twin-tone IM tests based on continous pure sine waves. Yes, but they are not quite routine. By routine I mean available in an affordable mass produced instrument. At the moment two tone tests are mostly a lash-up. The PC based simulations are in the process of changing that dynamic. I've been doing that for years. Ever look at www.pcavtech.com? Ever look at the tests performed by the Audio Rightmark program? And single tone tests can be interpreted in a way that implies slew based problems, but that "interpretation" does not yield repeatable numbers. Actually, just about any given test of deterministic equipment yields repeatable numbers. Anyone who has spent some time running THD+N and SMPTE IM distortion tests begins to acquire an ability to pick units that might be interesting to listen to by observing the distortion residual trace. Unfortunately, its more art than science because we haven't developed any system of applying metrics to our observations. Ever read the Geddes-Lee AES paper about the audibility of nonlinear distortion? Ironically, many of the pieces of equipment that were indicted for this actually do pretty well in blind tests. Our understanding of the aural process is evolving. In some sense it doesn't matter. You don't have to understand the last detail of how the ear/brain combination works to determine what it detects and what it does not detect. e are still searching for that ultimate "number" that correlates well with the jury. A combination of the traditional numbers and the results of a two tone test are a step in right direction. Two tone testing is traditional in the 21st century. True, we have some more interesting, somewhat more expensive tests now, but they are not mainstream and we have no proof that they cover all the bases. Actually we do. There are only two kinds of distortion - nonlinear and linear. We can measure either to our heart's content and with insanely high levels of precision and accuracy. Our body's aural processing system obediently follows our simple mathematical abstractions? See former comments about listening tests and the Geddes-Lee AES paper. How far can we generalize the listening jury's opinion? If a player causes problems with program material known to tax its capabilities, then it is also likely to cause problems as it is used to play a wide variety of common music. For what percentage of the population (jury)? Should we break that population into audiophile and non audiophile segments. (call them trained and untrained if you like) Let's just cut to the chase and do our listening tests with well-trained audiophiles. Let's consider two CD players or two Tuners. In my experience it is common for tuners and CD players to have some sort of high frequency leakage. I don't know about the tuners, but CD players have brick wall filters at 22 KHz. In modern players those are generally very good. Unless something sneaks around the filter. N ame a *respected*CD player with a lot of leakage about 16 KHz. I've tested a lot of mid-fi and poorer CD players, and they are pretty clean. The bandpass of my tests is 100 KHz. no answer 22K? What's all the fuss about over sampling? The marketing hype (and the math) leads one to believe that "brick wall" causes phase funnies at the top of the band. Oversampling relaxes the need for reconstruction brick wall filters so close to the pass band. In the 21st century that's all old tech. We now have reasonbly-priced converter chips that are phase-linear up to 20 KHz @44 KHz, higher at higher sample rates. |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
Not if you haven't yet swallowed your daily dose of Kroo****. The voice of experience speaks! |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
The Beast shat: Not if you haven't yet swallowed your daily dose of Kroo****. The voice of experience speaks! Thank's for admitting Mr. **** that everything you emit is the moral equivalent™ of doodoo. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:56:08 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . Sorry mate, the attribution in Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land' greatly predates the Internet jape. As with the Gospel of St Thomas, and the real story of Mary Magdalene, this is clearly another example of the Church attempting to suppress the truth - that it is only idiots who believe what it says in the Bible.............. But what about the 11th Commandment? Still the only one that matters.................... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Can you, from the measurements tell me how many times you can pass audio through a Lynx2 before it's effects will be audible? Yes, far more than necessary. The Lynx2 outperforms just about any real-world recording of music, as well as the instantaneous dynamic range of the human ear. Agreed, but so do most CD players, just not by quite as much. According to one well-known authority, after a system has 100 dB or more dynamic range, it's left the ears and just about everything else in the real world in the dust. I think even 96 dB just about covers it. MrT. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... I'm quite sure it can, but my goal at switch-over is not to eliminate audible glitches. In fact I claim that a bounded audible glitch is a good idea. It just needs to remain either very the same, or truely random. But you were the one claiming perfection is necessary to eliminate doubt. The trick is to know what matters, and what doesn't, and how much. One can learn that through experience. Yes, or just make whatever claims suit your purposes, when someone else's experience differs from yours. MrT. |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
"Colin B." wrote in message ... You're right. From one day to another, you probably couldn't consistently pick out the difference between any two components (except speakers), so really we should all be using Fisher all-in-one stereos. I wouldn't go quite that far, but I am a strong advocate of using a $200 CD player and $5,000 speakers, rather than vice versa! If I'm going to buy a CD player, I would like to know if the higher end one is audibly different (and one would hope, superior). If it is, then fine. If not, then I have to decide if I want a nicer box for the same sound. The sound will usually be the same. For the extra money you should get (but not always) better looks, better controls, beter reliability, better profit margin. If the two methods disagreed on result, we would have a problem. However they don't appear to. I'd say they quite often disagree. Your test can allow for false positives (believing there's a difference in the reproduction when it's time or level matching problems) Never been a problem. I work on a 95% pass rate. as well as false negatives (after a ten second delay, you may not be able to hear a proven difference). I'm not trying to prove transient detection. The careful syncing and matching of signals and instantaneous switching eliminates both of these problems. Yes, if you get it sample accurate. You're looking for 'good enough as makes no effective difference.' Arny is looking for 'No audible differences at all.' Both of these are valid, but ***they're not the same thing.*** I never said they were the same thing! It seems to me you claim results similar to mine. How many players have you found a *proven* audible difference with? MrT. |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Who did, Philips or Sony? They both used the same sample rate, so I presume you're referring to bit depth. Yep, they both agreed on 16 bits for CD's even if Phillips first players only managed 14 bits. Even they new technology would improve with time. Vinyl on the best day of its life might be a fraction over 12 bits, so what's wrong with 14 bits? The idea was to *improve* upon vinyl. Thankfully they did it by a good margin. They aimed for the capabilities of the human auditory system rather than an antiquated system they were trying to replace. I don't think you would be so happy with 12 bits today. MrT. |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Mr.T wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... I'm quite sure it can, but my goal at switch-over is not to eliminate audible glitches. In fact I claim that a bounded audible glitch is a good idea. It just needs to remain either very the same, or truely random. But you were the one claiming perfection is necessary to eliminate doubt. I seriously doubt that you'll ever hear me speaking of perfection in any practical sense. It's an elusive goal and I almost never even think about it. The trick is to know what matters, and what doesn't, and how much. One can learn that through experience. Yes, or just make whatever claims suit your purposes, when someone else's experience differs from yours. Come back when you've been doing tests that are as good as mine, for as long has I have. Or even half. |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Come back when you've been doing tests that are as good as mine, for as long has I have. Or even half. Arny has the biggest 'test'icles on RAO. He has been following a most robust stretching regimen for years. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:29:31 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . Who did, Philips or Sony? They both used the same sample rate, so I presume you're referring to bit depth. Yep, they both agreed on 16 bits for CD's even if Phillips first players only managed 14 bits. Untrue. Philips first players were noise-shaped 4x oversampled 14 bits, which gives 16-bit resolution. In reality, they had better linearity than the true 16-bit DACs in the Japanese players of 1983. Even they new technology would improve with time. Of course. If they had waited 20 years, they'd have settled on 20/150, or thereabouts. Vinyl on the best day of its life might be a fraction over 12 bits, so what's wrong with 14 bits? The idea was to *improve* upon vinyl. Thankfully they did it by a good margin. They aimed for the capabilities of the human auditory system rather than an antiquated system they were trying to replace. Quite so. I don't think you would be so happy with 12 bits today. Indeed not, as *really* good analogue master tapes are closer to 14 bits equivalent dynamic range. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.tech Barry Mann wrote:
risk of intermodulation products, young ears might directly percieve the tones, while older ears may not. I've experienced many examples of CD players and Tuners that will bug me after a while, for no reason that I can explicitly point to. There'll be some discomfort, almost pain, or a hard to pinpoint mood change. If I thow these offending units on the bench I'll see some high frequency junk. ....and of course to link cause and effect, you'd want to determine if the players that *didn't* cause discomfort had that HF junk or not. Did you? -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.tech Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Colin B." wrote in message ... You're right. From one day to another, you probably couldn't consistently pick out the difference between any two components (except speakers), so really we should all be using Fisher all-in-one stereos. I wouldn't go quite that far, but I am a strong advocate of using a $200 CD player and $5,000 speakers, rather than vice versa! No argument there from me. The sound will usually be the same. For the extra money you should get (but not always) better looks, better controls, beter reliability, better profit margin. But does "the same" mean identical, or just so you don't notice the difference in casual listening? Never been a problem. I work on a 95% pass rate. False positives are what drives the entire extreme audiophile market, so it may not be a problem for you but it _is_ an issue out there. I'm not trying to prove transient detection. It's not necessarily transient detection. Let's say that one player has weaker bass response by a small bit. It would be hard to detect under carefully controlled instant-switching conditions, but possible. If you have a ten second delay between components, you may not reliably be able to confirm it at all. The question of this difference's importance is entirely subjective. The existence of it is objective. You're looking for 'good enough as makes no effective difference.' Arny is looking for 'No audible differences at all.' Both of these are valid, but ***they're not the same thing.*** I never said they were the same thing! You certainly seem to be stating that they accomplish the same end, and that Arny's method is unnecessary. It's entirely necessary, however, to achieve his goals (which I will reiterate are not the same as your goals). Colin |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick said: Arny has the biggest 'test'icles on RAO. He has been following a most robust stretching regimen for years. Given™ Arnii's love of implants and feces (both real and fake), it's quite likely any bulges he exhibits are more extrusive than pendulous. |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
In , on 04/14/05
at 06:39 PM, Steven Sullivan said: In rec.audio.tech Barry Mann wrote: risk of intermodulation products, young ears might directly percieve the tones, while older ears may not. I've experienced many examples of CD players and Tuners that will bug me after a while, for no reason that I can explicitly point to. There'll be some discomfort, almost pain, or a hard to pinpoint mood change. If I throw these offending units on the bench I'll see some high frequency junk. ....and of course to link cause and effect, you'd want to determine if the players that *didn't* cause discomfort had that HF junk or not. Did you? Yes, some were fine. There may have been other things, but the high frequency junk seemed like a common thread. There were also headphones involved. It wouldn't happen with speakers. With some units I could listen for hours, others would bug me after 15 minutes or so. I never had this sort of problem with LP's, clean AM, or MONO FM. ----------------------------------------------------------- spam: wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15 13 (Barry Mann) [sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox] ----------------------------------------------------------- |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Untrue. Philips first players were noise-shaped 4x oversampled 14 bits, which gives 16-bit resolution. In reality, they had better linearity than the true 16-bit DACs in the Japanese players of 1983. So you now admit they both agreed on 16 bits anyway, which is what I said in the first place. Indeed not, as *really* good analogue master tapes are closer to 14 bits equivalent dynamic range. And most good digital masters too :-) MrT. |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
"Colin B." wrote in message ... But does "the same" mean identical, or just so you don't notice the difference in casual listening? Just so you can't tell the difference under critical listening. It's not necessarily transient detection. Let's say that one player has weaker bass response by a small bit. It would be hard to detect under carefully controlled instant-switching conditions, but possible. If you have a ten second delay between components, you may not reliably be able to confirm it at all. It would be easily measureable. Flat from 20Hz to 20kHz +/- 0.5dB is pretty much a given for any decent CD player today. Differences even in the very best speakers will swamp such minor variation into insignificance IMO. And some peoples aversion to tone controls amazes me, since I know very well what goes on in the recording and mastering studio's. Still there will always be people happier to improve on what is nearly perfect, rather than attack the real problems. The question of this difference's importance is entirely subjective. The existence of it is objective. Yep. I'll let others make their own choices, it's just better IMO when they are based on some facts. You certainly seem to be stating that they accomplish the same end, No, just that our conclusions are very similar. that Arny's method is unnecessary. It's entirely necessary, however, to achieve his goals (which I will reiterate are not the same as your goals). Which is what I already said. MrT. |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:37:00 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . Untrue. Philips first players were noise-shaped 4x oversampled 14 bits, which gives 16-bit resolution. In reality, they had better linearity than the true 16-bit DACs in the Japanese players of 1983. So you now admit they both agreed on 16 bits anyway, which is what I said in the first place. What do you mean 'admit'? The facts are that Philips wanted 14 bits - not oversampled to 16-bit resolution, 14 bits of *information* on the CD. It was Sony who held out for 16. Indeed not, as *really* good analogue master tapes are closer to 14 bits equivalent dynamic range. And most good digital masters too :-) Indeed, since the limit is not set either by tape or converters. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.tech Barry Mann wrote:
In , on 04/14/05 at 06:39 PM, Steven Sullivan said: In rec.audio.tech Barry Mann wrote: risk of intermodulation products, young ears might directly percieve the tones, while older ears may not. I've experienced many examples of CD players and Tuners that will bug me after a while, for no reason that I can explicitly point to. There'll be some discomfort, almost pain, or a hard to pinpoint mood change. If I throw these offending units on the bench I'll see some high frequency junk. ....and of course to link cause and effect, you'd want to determine if the players that *didn't* cause discomfort had that HF junk or not. Did you? Yes, some were fine. There may have been other things, but the high frequency junk seemed like a common thread. There were also headphones involved. It wouldn't happen with speakers. With some units I could listen for hours, others would bug me after 15 minutes or so. I never had this sort of problem with LP's, clean AM, or MONO FM. LPs rarely contained much content above 15 kHz. And AM or FM..fugheddaboudit. It doesn't sound like you really did a test series rigorous e nough to draw the cause and effect conclusions you've drawn. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
on topic: we need a rec.audio.pro.ot newsgroup! | Pro Audio | |||
Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
Some Mixing Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
Creating Dimension In Mixing- PDF available on Request (112 pages0 | Pro Audio |