Nose floor vs audible effects

[sandyk]

George

Are you now disputing the 6 Blind test results performed by Martin Colloms. the published results in TAS220 ,221 and other confirmations by the likes of Peter St, and a few other members posted around 5 years ago in C.A. ?

Did I send you an FYI ONLY PM re the results of tests performed in Sydney by 2 local qualified EE.s ?

 

Alex

[Allan F]

Any self respecting audiophile will already have a calibrated mic and an ADC.

 

Rather ridiculous hyperbole, in my view. I know many audiophiles with neither, including some classical concert musicians, and I don't see them lacking for self-respect.

[gmgraves]

George

Are you now disputing the 6 Blind test results performed by Martin Colloms. the published results in TAS220 ,221 and other confirmations by the likes of Peter St, and a few other members posted around 5 years ago in C.A. ?

Did I send you an FYI ONLY PM re the results of tests performed in Sydney by 2 local qualified EE.s ?

 

Alex

 

 

Alex, I'm not refuting anything or anyone specifically, here.

[sandyk]

Alex, I'm not refuting anything or anyone specifically, here.

 

George

 

The quoted sentence is very specific.

Please check your PMs

Alex

 

Just a few of these things are that you can't copy a digital audio file without somehow changing it, or two files with the same check-sum can still sound different,

[beanbag]

Any self respecting person who cares about the actual fidelity of reproduced music in their room will already have a calibrated mic and an ADC.

[sandyk]

Any self respecting person who cares about the actual fidelity of reproduced music in their room will already have a calibrated mic and an ADC.

 

Which ADC and calibrated mic do you own ?

[dallasjustice]

Which ADC and calibrated mic do you own ?

 

The gear isn't that important. What matters is that any decent calibrated mic and ADC will be many times more accurate than any speaker in the Milky Way. My speakers are one of the best measuring the history of Stereophile in terms of THD. Few speakers are even measured this way. I think only the Quads measured better. Here is a THD measurent >1khz I took of my speakers at 1m:

 

Even though they measure well, they sound so much better with very gentle FIR correction applied >1khz. The difference is something like you might experience hearing the best USB cable times 100. :-)

[sandyk]

Interesting.You have gone to a lot of trouble to tame the room too, but my reply was directed to the refugee from the Gasbag Forum, Mr. $30 DAC.

Most members should be able to work out why I asked that question of him.

Let's see what a Google Search comes up with for him. (grin)

 

The difference is something like you might experience hearing the best USB cable times 100. :-)

You are leaving yourself wide open with that comment, as some of your buddies in the DSP area of the forum would say that 0 x 100= 0

[gmgraves]

George

 

The quoted sentence is very specific.

Please check your PMs

Alex

 

 

Alex, all of this correspondence is anecdotal and tells me nothing except that perhaps mass hysteria is a communicable disease.

 

It is simply not possible for two files with identical checksums (I.E. to be bit-for-bit identical) to sound different when played over the same equipment in the same way. If they do sound different (and I'm not discounting that possibility), then something is wrong somewhere. Either the files are not bit-for-bit identical or something is changing in the playback chain. Most likely, it is some kind of psychoacoustic effect caused by the listeners' expectation. I don't know, and I don't have enough information to find out or even to postulate a theory.

[sandyk]

George

' The stuff from Martin Colloms was NOT anecdotal, and his results were statistically valid.. These are simply additional confirming reports, one from a highly qualified person in that area..

It suggests as my EE friend believes, that Checksums are simply not able to reveal the audible differences, which should be measurable at the analogue output of a DAC given suitable equipment, and knowing what to measure. Don't forget though, that Gordon Rankin was also able to hear differences with USB cables , but is so far unable to confirm this with measurements..

It's a shame that we are on different continents as it's so damn easy to demonstrate these things directly.

 

Alex

[beanbag]

Interesting.You have gone to a lot of trouble to tame the room too, but my reply was directed to the refugee from the Gasbag Forum, Mr. $30 DAC.

Most members should be able to work out why I asked that question of him.

Let's see what a Google Search comes up with for him. (grin)

 

 

Why is it that you can't hold up your end of the conversation on a particular topic, and resort to random insinuations and further off topic digressions?

 

To answer your questions:

If you like to google search me so much, find out yourself what mic I have. Hint - use this in your search query - site:computeraudiophile.com

 

Try as you may, you can't stick the HydrogenAudio Forums on me, haha. I only have two posts there ever, asking about Foobar. Perhaps you are confusing me with one of your other ideological antagonists, wgscott, who is the refugee, not me.

 

Man up and just say what you have against my DAC, which is currently $28 with free shipping from Amazon. Don't forget that I have three of them in a 3-way digital XO, so my three DACs combined can beat up your DAC, just like the Joker's minions can overwhelm Batman. (This is the level of conversation you are going to get if you can't engage with anything of technical merit.)

[Allan F]

Any self respecting person who cares about the actual fidelity of reproduced music in their room will already have a calibrated mic and an ADC.

 

-1

 

See post #101. IMO, Your additions to the previous hyperbole change nothing. Their systems, and mine, are anything but lacking in actual fidelity.

[mayhem13]

Can you define 'actual fidelity' for those of us outside the circle?

[spdif-usb]

Thank you. You cannot hear above 20kHz, but I saw some dissertations that we might feel it somehow. To me most of the things lay down to the mastering quality and DAC architecture (filtering) and that's why probably we care about high resolution, because it has potentially better mastering and all digital operations are done above the hearing range which may produce cleaner sound with better S/N in the audible range. I think also that recording with high resolution microphones may capture more details of the venue and the instruments timbre and those artefacts could be audible in the human hearing range. Thus I think if the equipment is able to lower the noise floor as much as possible the result of the sound might be better because more room for the real music at the end. Question however is again - how much noise floor from the equipment is too much and will be audible?

 

What do you think?

P14-3 The Audibility of Typical Digital Audio Filters in a High-Fidelity Playback System—Helen M. Jackson, Meridian Audio Ltd. - Huntingdon, UK; Michael D. Capp, Meridian Audio Ltd. - Huntingdon, UK; J. Robert Stuart, Meridian Audio Ltd. - Huntingdon, UK

This paper describes listening tests investigating the audibility of various filters applied in high-resolution wideband digital playback systems. Discrimination between filtered and unfiltered signals was compared directly in the same subjects using a double-blind psychophysical test. Filter responses tested were representative of anti-alias filters used in A/D (analog-to-digital) converters or mastering processes. Further tests probed the audibility of 16-bit quantization with or without a rectangular dither. Results suggest that listeners are sensitive to the small signal alterations introduced by these filters and quantization. Two main conclusions are offered: first, there exist audible signals that cannot be encoded transparently by a standard CD; and second, an audio chain used for such experiments must be capable of high-fidelity reproduction.

Convention Paper 9174

AES Los Angeles 2014 » Paper Session P14: Perception: Part 2

 

This paper was given the top award by the AES organization. (It is the first AES publication that refutes the Meyer/Moran research that has been so often quoted as "proof" that CD specification PCM audio is enough for music reproduction.)

[RealAudio]

AES Los Angeles 2014 » Paper Session P14: Perception: Part 2

 

This paper was given the top award by the AES organization. (It is the first AES publication that refutes the Meyer/Moran research that has been so often quoted as "proof" that CD specification PCM audio is enough for music reproduction.)

 

Where do you see that it was given an award? I can't even find the preprint on the AES website. Without seeing the actual paper it's impossible to tell what it really says.

[Sam Lord]

...The Mercury arrangement utilized the semi-cardioide pattern of the U-47 (when switched to the omni-pattern) to give a modicum of directionality to the pickup which resulted in the famous pin-point Mercury imaging and soundstage... ...In today's world, the most natural-sounding recordings are made by Ray Kimber and his "Iso-Mike" process...

 

George, this is just a brief diversion, but thank you for this background and relating old and new methods. I've always wanted to try some enhanced (bigger, heavier) Jecklin disk techniques like Ray used, only on a smaller scale. Omnis have so many great qualities...and DPA omnis have some interesting attachments to add slight directionality. Non-phantom types like Sonodore could be the cat's meow, I hate the idea of phantom circuits. I think Ray used LDC omnis for the Isomike series, maybe M50s or M150s? Cheers

[dallasjustice]

You are leaving yourself wide open with that comment, as some of your buddies in the DSP area of the forum would say that 0 x 100= 0

I wouldn't consider Michael Fremer a DSP enthusiast or a buddy to anything class D or DSP. Your DSP DEQX'er from down under had his brain water swirling counter clockwise last weekend.

Is Kyron Audio's Kronos the Best Sounding System You Will Ever Hear? | Analog Planet

[sandyk]

I wouldn't consider Michael Fremer a DSP enthusiast or a buddy to anything class D or DSP. Your DSP DEQX'er from down under had his brain water swirling counter clockwise last weekend.

Is Kyron Audio's Kronos the Best Sounding System You Will Ever Hear? | Analog Planet

 

Perhaps it's your brain water that is swirling the wrong way around ?

I didn't say anything about DEQX being used last weekend. It was one of the products that you guys rabbit on about in a different part of the forum. In fact, there was also a report there that it lacked a little transparency.

[gmgraves]

George, this is just a brief diversion, but thank you for this background and relating old and new methods. I've always wanted to try some enhanced (bigger, heavier) Jecklin disk techniques like Ray used, only on a smaller scale. Omnis have so many great qualities...and DPA omnis have some interesting attachments to add slight directionality. Non-phantom types like Sonodore could be the cat's meow, I hate the idea of phantom circuits. I think Ray used LDC omnis for the Isomike series, maybe M50s or M150s? Cheers

 

I was under the impression that Ray used DPA omnis for his IsoMike recordings, but frankly, now that search my IsoMike literature, I find that they don't actually say. So, this could be more of a "notion" on my part, than it is fact.

 

I don't usually use omni mikes as I don't believe in the omni spaced-array model. Modern omnis are true omnis, and I find that they do not give the pin-point imaging that I value, and even though, on paper, they have flatter more extended frequency response than do cardioids, I have not found that characteristic to audibly improve a recording made using them over the same ensemble miked with a coincident stereo pair of cardioids or an MS arrangement using a single figure-of-eight mike and a forward firing cardioid. The exception to that is the Jecklin Disc approach that Kimber uses.

 

Several years ago, I had the privilege to record, every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, The Stanford University "big-band" jazz ensemble at rehearsal in one of Stanford's rehearsal halls in their music building (the best venue I've ever been in for recording). This allowed me to try many different mike configurations over the three months that I recorded there. I was able to try almost everything: X-Y, A-B, ORTF, M-S, spaced omni array (a'la Fine/Eberenz), even the "Decca Tree"; all recorded with the same group, arranged in the same way, in the same venue. The results were simply amazing, and I still study the recordings from time to time just to remind myself of the different perspectives and spatial effects afforded by each microphone setup.