Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

It's just your logic that's in question

By not exposing myself to components for weeks to "hear" them?

[AJ Soundfield]

1 minute ago, mmerrill99 said:

Do you know any such tests for noise mod?

Nope, not my burden, just the noise mod hearers

[esldude]

6 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Put the cart back behind the horse, have "noise mod" show up audible in a trust ears test first, worry about showing correlated measurements later, no wild goose chases and shifted burden of proof.

Good point.  While I was curious about noise floor modulation, it often gets thrown about as an issue, while measures of it show not very much happening.  So my a priori judgement would be it is a wild goose chase. 

 

We don't have unsighted auditions showing it is a problem with modern digital gear.

[plissken]

I can't remember the last time competent line level component not having a noise floor -114 to -120dB at the least and that is talking just singled ended components.

[semente]

5 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Ask esl

Do you know any such tests for noise mod?

 

Is this what you are looking for? (pages 132/133)

 

Noise Modulation
It is possible for noise or dither to have decorrelated the truncation error from the input signal, but not to have decorrelated the truncation error power from the input signal. For a simple example, truncation error power might be minimized if the mean signal level is centered between quantization decision points, while it would be maximized when the signal is closer to a decision point. This is illustrated in Figure 118 in the annex on dither. The positive half of the waveform approaches the decision point between the 0 and 1 level (at 0.5 LSB), and the dither causes the quantizer to switch frequently between those two levels. This is in contrast with the negative half of the waveform, which is close to midway between decision points where the dither is much less likely to cause the output to change.
This correlation of truncation error power with signal is a form of noise modulation.
A simple test for this would be to measure the noise or noise spectrum for a low-level tone with various DC levels. The idle channel FFT spectra measurement discussed on page 107 would also reveal broad-band noise fluctuations.
When performing an FFT, if the variation in noise level is small it may be swamped by the statistical variation of the FFT noise floor. In this case, it is possible to use FFT power averaging to reduce the statistical variation.
A swept bandpass filter measurement may also be used. AES17 recommends a using 41 Hz stimulus at –40 dB FS, notching the stimulus out of the results, applying a series of one-third octave bandpass filters and measuring
the noise in each band. The stimulus is then dropped by 10 dB and a new set of measurements is taken. This process is repeated until a family of measurements is completed.

 

 

http://www2.electron.frba.utn.edu.ar/~jcecconi/Bibliografia/13 - Medicion de Amplificadores/Documentos/AudioPrecision_AN5_DigitalAudioMeasurement.pdf

[esldude]

22 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Again, can you qualify this claim? What level are you saying it is audible at & below what level not? What signal conditions cause audibility? 

Obviously if signal level produces a noise level with it that can be heard as noise it is audible. 

Think some radio reception conditions where the increase in modulation also increases noise and you hear noise come and go with the audible signal. 

 

It would be my opinion that if the modulation by signal never raises the noise floor to an audible level, like 80 db below the signal you aren't going to hear it.  Some people claim otherwise, but don't have any data I am aware of to show it is true.

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

Good point.  While I was curious about noise floor modulation, it often gets thrown about as an issue, while measures of it show not very much happening.  So my a priori judgement would be it is a wild goose chase. 

The modus operandi of believers and magic shills is to shift the burden of proof to rational people for their claims and what they "hear", with zero evidence in the form of "trust ears" "just listening".

"prove I'm wrong" aka negative proof

[esldude]

19 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

So, let's try to qualify this - are you saying that if noise mod is audible it will show up in the DR test?

Ergo, only when "modulation is considerable" will it be audible?

Nope didn't say that.  I said if there was enough noise floor modulation it would show up in the DR test.  Therefore the Ergo also doesn't apply.  You do work hard to misunderstand.

 

The proper DR test is to send a signal at -60db relative to maximum level through and filter it out.  Measure the noise left, add 60 db to the result and you have dynamic range. 

 

If signal levels are modulating the noise floor the two devices might have identical SNR and rather different DR. 

 

When is it audible?  Well if we were talking about a high noise system noise modulation might be buried by system noise. If we were talking something with 130 db SNR, noise modulation could occur, and still be so far down as to not matter at all.

 

So it would become audible at least where noise itself is audible.  It might be audible a bit lower. Then there are wide ranges where the resulting modulation is so low you aren't going to hear it. If someone thinks you can hear a modulation of a few decibels of a noise floor down 90 db from the signal they need to demonstrate that is possible before I would believe them.

[mmerrill99]

26 minutes ago, esldude said:

Good point.  While I was curious about noise floor modulation, it often gets thrown about as an issue, while measures of it show not very much happening.  So my a priori judgement would be it is a wild goose chase. 

 

We don't have unsighted auditions showing it is a problem with modern digital gear.

Hold on now - as Aj says - put the horse back before the cart

 

You claim noise inaudibility from your tests

We see that you have left out a test for noise mod

Now you try to distract from your inaudibility claim by suggesting that noise mod has not been shown as audible yet

 

Your claim is now no longer a valid as there is a possibility that noise mod is audible - you even stated it yourself that it was audible above certain levels which I asked you the details of.

 

[wushuliu]

Now that I see some typically divisive rhetoric from names familiar from other forums it's clear this thread has hit bottom.

[esldude]

Yes it has. 

[Superdad]

5 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

More rubbish. A rational person who believes there is no audible difference is not doing the blind listening tests.

 

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

What does that have to with being totally one dimensional by being incapable of measuring and subsequently having zero trust in ears and avoiding trust ears tests at all cost? 

 

55 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I trust my ears.

 

35 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

The modus operandi of believers and magic shills is to shift the burden of proof to rational people for their claims and what they "hear", with zero evidence in the form of "trust ears" "just listening".

"prove I'm wrong" aka negative proof

 

Your contradictions are confusing.  Let me see if I have this straight:

 

a) You trust your ears and measurements so you don't do blind tests;

 

b) You don't trust anyone else's ears so they must perform blind tests or what they say is rubbish;

 

c) Anyone who performs a blind test is irrational and must be trying to prove there are differences--when none can be heard and none can be measured;

 

[I'll now venture a bit further that the quotes reveal, but still within the tenor of what is being said by you and others.]

 

d) Anyone who performs a sighted test is delusional, and any reports of what they hear are to be instantly discarded;

 

e) Well regarded engineers who have for decades been designing and producing products based on a combination of measurement and sighted listening (for selection of components which nobody can show measurable differences between) are likewise charlatans.

 

Have I left anything out @AJ Soundfield?  If not, then you are welcome just to paste the above summary into your signature.  That will save others from trying to decipher all your Twitter length quips and nonsensical barbs.  

 

 

 

[mmerrill99]

40 minutes ago, esldude said:

Nope didn't say that.  I said if there was enough noise floor modulation it would show up in the DR test.  Therefore the Ergo also doesn't apply.  You do work hard to misunderstand.

Nope I'm just logical & consistent

You made a claim that noise was inaudible based on your set of tests nominated. You left out noise mod test. The you said that if gross noise mod existed tat it would show in the DR test. Therefore (ergo) bear with me - you must be saying that if noise mod was audible it would have shown up in your DR test & it didn't therefore you make the claim of it's inaudibility. This is logical base don your posts.

 

The only other interpretation is that you made a claim of inaudibility without sufficient measurements.

 

Is this what you are now saying?

[esldude]

31 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Hold on now - as Aj says - put the horse back before the cart

 

You claim noise inaudibility from your tests

We see that you have left out a test for noise mod

Now you try to distract from your inaudibility claim by suggesting that noise mod has not been shown as audible yet

 

Your claim is now no longer a valid as there is a possibility that noise mod is audible - you even stated it yourself that it was audible above certain levels which I asked you the details of.

 

This will be my last reply to you mmerrill99.  Last reply on this thread, on this topic on this forum. You are simply posting in bad faith. Or your way of thinking is so alien no meaningful communication can occur.  Either way not worth my time as there are better things to do including doing nothing.

 

I actually typed in responses to your above statements.  I deleted them.  No point.  Your statements about what I have been writing or claiming are so highly distorted they are ridiculous.  It is your usual method to keep up such carping until people grow tired of your trivial complaints and consistent misrepresentation.  You no doubt once again consider yourself the winner.  Congratulations. 

 

[mmerrill99]

47 minutes ago, esldude said:

The proper DR test is to send a signal at -60db relative to maximum level through and filter it out.  Measure the noise left, add 60 db to the result and you have dynamic range. 

 

If signal levels are modulating the noise floor the two devices might have identical SNR and rather different DR. 

 

When is it audible?  Well if we were talking about a high noise system noise modulation might be buried by system noise. If we were talking something with 130 db SNR, noise modulation could occur, and still be so far down as to not matter at all.

 

So it would become audible at least where noise itself is audible.  It might be audible a bit lower. Then there are wide ranges where the resulting modulation is so low you aren't going to hear it. If someone thinks you can hear a modulation of a few decibels of a noise floor down 90 db from the signal they need to demonstrate that is possible before I would believe them.

The noise itself doesn't have to be audible as a separate entity but rather it's effects may be audible.

 

Noise that modulates with signal is difficult to test as it will be dynamically changing as the dynamic signal changes.

One of the recognised ways of testing for this are multitoned tests as they more closely resemble the structure of music. But remember this multitoned test is still a static signal test 

 

Having said all that, the best source of these multitoned tests is here: http://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/report/dac/audiolab-m-dac-sharp.php

 

They have done 10 & 50 multitoned tests on many DACs

 

The one linked to above is for one of the best tested DACs - Audiolab's M-DAC

So let's look at the 10 tone multitone test @ -60dB

What we see are the 10 tones plotted as equally spaced spikes. Between these spikes we get the intermodulation products of these tones which gives rise to this form of noise modulation. So the grass seen between spikes is the noise - touching on & above -80dB in places

 

Remember this is the best measured DAC, AFAIK & it's not a dynamically changing signal as music is

 

this is the 50 tone multitoned plot

 

 

Lets have a look at another very good DAC - Lynx D47 - again poking above -80dB in places

 

So even with these very good measuring DACs we see esl's  criteria of audibility for noise (-80dB) breached by both of them.

 

Where does this leave his claim of noise inaudibility when he hasn't done suitable noise mod tests

 

Let's look at some more noise mod charts of other DACs next?

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Is noise modulation audible?  At some level yes.  In fact if the modulation is considerable it will show up in the dynamic range test.

 

Consider measuring not only the noise floor but close-in noise. Most frequently folks quote the noise floor at some ridiculously low level (e.g. -150 db) but that's the floor. The 1/f component will often greatly increase the close-in noise (theoretically approaching infinite as frequency approaches zero) but look at the corner frequency... see article I just posted from Analog Designs .. very readable at least until the math starts  

[mmerrill99]

6 minutes ago, esldude said:

Your statements about what I have been writing or claiming are so highly distorted they are ridiculous. 

Citations as evidence of your claim, please?

[AJ Soundfield]

18 minutes ago, Superdad said:

Let me see if I have this straight:

You don't.

Quote

a) You trust your ears so you don't do blind tests

Wrong. I trust my ears enough to not fear them. I've taken plenty. Harman, Philips, Klippel, etc.

You don't trust yours so you fear blind test will expose you.

 

Quote

b) You don't trust anyone else's ears so they must perform blind tests or what they say is rubbish;

For extraordinary claims about hearing "phase noise", Santa, "unmeasurable but audible effects" etc. absolutely.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

Quote

c) Anyone who performs a blind test is irrational and must be trying to prove there are differences--when none can be heard and none can be measured;

Can't help with you that gibberish, sorry.

.

Quote

d) Anyone who performs a sighted "test" is delusional, and any reports of what they hear are to be instantly discarded;

You're repeating yourself without cognizance, unsurprisingly. See b).

 

Quote

e) Well regarded engineers who have for decades been designing and producing products based on a combination of measurement and sighted listening (for selection of components which nobody can show measurable differences between) are likewise charlatans.

See c)

 

Quote

Have I left anything out @AJ Soundfield? 

A cogent argument.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, plissken said:

 

A lot of equipment in the sound mastering sphere would be a good start.

 

Yes, I suspected that would be an answer - and, in fact that that is correct in itself. Where gear in this world fails badly is that "lack of refinement" shines through so strongly - they're like a muscle car with a throbbing V8 and horse cart springs, that bangs and crashes its way down a poorly made road, your posterior feels every tiny crevice in the surface.

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I'm quoting verbatim, no confusion or rereading needed on my part.

You thought nonsense was a good point

 

don't be silly - either address the point or give up

[fas42]

10 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I'm guessing a Philips HTIB wouldn't

 

People should be aware that there was nothing particularly "low qual" in the Philips unit, electrically. I'm currently using some classic older NAD gear for experiments, and in many areas the Philips is superior in how it was built. As an example, the transformer is quite a bit more substantial - and, it offloaded all the bass frequency duties to a self-powered subwoofer. I have the service manual for the Philips unit, and it makes the printed material available for much of the really expensive gear look quite pathetic - IOW, a reasonable amount of engineering effort was put into it.

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, wushuliu said:

Now that I see some typically divisive rhetoric from names familiar from other forums it's clear this thread has hit bottom.

 

there are some valid points being made, but a loft of sifting is required to find the wheat in the mounds of chaff

[plissken]

19 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, I suspected that would be an answer - and, in fact that that is correct in itself. Where gear in this world fails badly is that "lack of refinement" shines through so strongly - they're like a muscle car with a throbbing V8 and horse cart springs, that bangs and crashes its way down a poorly made road, your posterior feels every tiny crevice in the surface.

 

If mastering gear lacks refinement then an audiophile system can't add back in what mastering gear didn't capture in the first place.

[fas42]

Just now, plissken said:

 

If mastering gear lacks refinement then an audiophile system can't add back in what mastering gear didn't capture in the first place.

 

The gear which is capturing the sound is normally of very high quality; it's the monitoring equipment, that which gives the feedback to the engineer that may lack the finesse.

[fas42]

I will use a current, real world analogy to how I go about doing things - as a contrast to the measurement and DB "debate" occurring now: we recently acquired an extra, second hand vehicle which runs very well - but, there are odd squeaks and a road roar issue with it; it disturbs the "comfort factor" when in the flow of driving. Now, I have zero interest in measuring those factors, or in comparing the noise levels in car A vs. car B; rather, I have a car in front of me which has subtle faults, which get in the way of enjoying the driving - they are definitely faults, because if brand new I would immediately go back to the dealer and demand they be fixed. But I can't do that, so I'll "fix them myself". And that's what's happening: bit by bit I'm locating where this extra noise is coming from, and applying "fixes". Repairing sound deadening faults, adding extra fasteners to tie down loose parts, more sound deadening material in strategic places.

 

Nothing done is spectacular, but each little bit adds to the whole - I'm going from a rattly, obviously second hand vehicle to one that 'feels' like a car in its prime - and, that feels good!