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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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]
-----------------------------------------------------------

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.

"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 =----

"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 =----

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.

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]
-----------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

Clyde Slick wrote:

Not if you haven't yet swallowed your daily dose of Kroo****.

The voice of experience speaks!

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.

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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"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 =----

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

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

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

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.

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]
-----------------------------------------------------------

"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.

"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.

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

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