Misleading Measurements

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

And constantly raising questions about the validity of something you don’t understand, have not studied or even tried to use, is what you’re  doing here. If you want to have a rational conversation about validity, then let’s have it, but not before you take that first step.

 

You are entering another loop, as we have already mentioned ways of validating tools that is not dependent on the end user which is clearly inherently flawed.

.

You are clutching at straws. People who produce tools need to provide validity data, not some nonsense like 'hey, you wouldn't understand'. That's just another way of saying 'believe me because I say so'. Sorry, I don't.

[pkane2001]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You are entering another loop, as we have already mentioned ways of validating tools that is not dependent on the end user which is clearly inherently flawed.

.

You are clutching at straws. People who produce tools need to provide validity data, not some nonsense like 'hey, you wouldn't understand'. That's just another way of saying 'believe me because I say so'. Sorry, I don't.

David, you have no clue what you’re talking about. The tools are not designed to measure anything or to produce any subjective results. They do exactly what they were designed to do and have been validated through independent testing. You may not understand it, but that’s ok. I’m done discussing this with you, as you have nothing to contribute to a rational discussion.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

They do exactly what they were designed to do and have been validated through independent testing

 

Great, please provide this - that's all I have been asking. neither unreasonable or irrational IMO.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Great, please provide this - that's all I have been asking. neither unreasonable or irrational IMO.

Take the first step.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Take the first step.

 

The first step is not mine to make. You cannot or will not provide objective evidence that your apps "do exactly what they were designed to do and have been validated through independent testing". It appears you have entered one of your loops to obfuscate this fact. So I'll leave you to play with your toys 🙂...../end loop

[fas42]

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The first step is not mine to make. You cannot or will not provide objective evidence that your apps "do exactly what they were designed to do and have been validated through independent testing". It appears you have entered one of your loops to obfuscate this fact. So I'll leave you to play with your toys 🙂...../end loop

Evidence is out there, easily located, if you look for it. I don’t need to provide it to you, since you’ve shown no interest in understanding of what the software does, what such evidence could even consist of, or why it might be needed. Any discussion now will be a waste of time.
 

Take the first step to understand it, ask a question that makes sense in the context of the software, and then we can discuss your specific validation requirements.

[kumakuma]

19 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The first step is not mine to make. You cannot or will not provide objective evidence that your apps "do exactly what they were designed to do and have been validated through independent testing". It appears you have entered one of your loops to obfuscate this fact. So I'll leave you to play with your toys 🙂...../end loop

 

David, I'm having a hard time understanding your hostility.

 

Paul has generously created some free tools that some folks are finding useful.

 

Why does this bother you and Alex?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Evidence is out there

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

David, I'm having a hard time understanding your hostility.

 

Paul has generously created some free tools that some folks are finding useful.

 

Why does this bother you and Alex?

 

No hostility at all Tom, just a simple request for validity data. Just normal objective science in operation.

I think @bluesman said something about "black box" and "carnival toy" .

[fas42]

The snake keeps twisting ...

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

No hostility at all Tom, just a simple request for validity data. Just normal objective science in operation.

 

 

Doesn't feel like that to me.

[bluesman]

5 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Good, so you made a claim. I've not disagreed with it, in fact, I stated that I make no claims about the audibility of HD or IMD or their importance in the audio chain.

 

Now, can you substantiate your claim with something other than your personal opinion? This is an objective forum, after all.

 

 

I just don't have the energy to go down this road again.  If you read the following posts in this thread, you'll find both my subjective reasoning and the objective data that support it. 

 

516, 521, 525, 530, 535, 536, 539, 543, 563, 567, 580, 582, 585, 587, 588, 604, 606, 609, 615, 617, 620, 627, 698, 702, 716

 

There are spectral analyses of two simultaneous tones (~220 and ~246 Hz) with their intermodulation products (or whatever the heck you want to call them, as long as you don't call them distortion because they're not).  You'll find the spectral analysis of a wav file of the two guitar notes with everything above 50 Hz filtered out, showing that the difference tone of 26 Hz remains in the recording and is therefore not the psychocacoustic product of the two fundamentals. 

 

Recording a playback of the wav file shows an increase in the level of the first difference tone (and all the others as well, in the unfiltered files), and repeated recordings of the playback through speakers of each successive wav file show further progressive increase as the intermodulation products are added on top of what's already on the recording.

 

QED

 

It is entirely reasonable that these products of tonal interaction (notice how I cleverly avoided calling it intermodulation, even though that's what produces them) affect SQ.  I believe they splash enough sonic mud on the source material to keep it from sounding completely real even through the best systems.  And I believe it renders IMD measurements misleading, because the IM products in the source plus those created again on playback far exceed any IMD in any currently available audiophile product.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Doesn't feel like that to me.

 

I'm asking for objective data in an objective thread. Not sure why that is difficult for "objectivists". "The evidence is out there" doesn't cut it. YMMV

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, bluesman said:

 

 

I just don't have the energy to go down this road again.  If you read the following posts in this thread, you'll find both my subjective reasoning and the objective data that support it. 

 

516, 521, 525, 530, 535, 536, 539, 543, 563, 567, 580, 582, 585, 587, 588, 604, 606, 609, 615, 617, 620, 627, 698, 702, 716

 

There are spectral analyses of two simultaneous tones (~220 and ~246 Hz) with their intermodulation products (or whatever the heck you want to call them, as long as you don't call them distortion because they're not).  You'll find the spectral analysis of a wav file of the two guitar notes with everything above 50 Hz filtered out, showing that the difference tone of 26 Hz remains in the recording and is therefore not the psychocacoustic product of the two fundamentals. 

 

Recording a playback of the wav file shows an increase in the level of the first difference tone, and repeated recordings the playback of each successive wav file show further progressive increase as the intermodulation products are added on top of what's already on the recording.

 

QED

 

So, as long as the IMD introduced by the playback equipment is relatively small compared to the IM that produced by the guitar string you've tested, then it's not significant. Got it. Can we test this audibility part? How small does it need to be, relatively speaking? And if the IMD frequencies generated by the equipment have a different amplitude relationship than those produced by the guitar, will this make it more or less audible? 

 

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just asking questions, since these would seem possibly important to understand before declaring all IMD inaudible.

 

[bluesman]

35 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I think @bluesman said something about "black box" and "carnival toy" .

What I said was neither pejorative nor directed at DISTORT.  I said that without knowing what is being done to the signal and how, any app that manipulates it is simply a "black box" - i.e. we have no idea what's being done inside it to create the output and whether there are other effects on the signal that are going unmeasured.  I was attempting (unsuccessfully) to find out more about the nonlineaerity that is said to add both IMD and THD.

 

I also said that without knowledge of what's being done to the signal, a box that adds distortion to a signal in an unknown way is simply an amusement ("carnival toy").  Again, I was trying to find out at least some specifics about what happens inside the black box.  Maybe DISTORT is a great thing that I'd find very useful to me - I don't know, because I can't find out how it does what it does. 

 

Please don't put words in my mouth or use my words out of context.

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, bluesman said:

What I said was neither pejorative nor directed at DISTORT.  I said that without knowing what is being done to the signal and how, any app that manipulates it is simply a "black box" - i.e. we have no idea what's being done inside it to create the output and whether there are other effects on the signal that are going unmeasured.  I was attempting (unsuccessfully) to find out more about the nonlineaerity that is said to add both IMD and THD.

 

If you really want to know the details, I'll start another thread. There's a long thread with all the beta-testing and validation on ASR, but I'm not opposed to starting another one here if you're not a member there. Similar threads already exist for DeltaWave on both forums.

[bluesman]

21 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

So, as long as the IMD introduced by the playback equipment is relatively small compared to the IM that produced by the guitar string you've tested, then it's not significant. Got it. Can we test this audibility part? How small does it need to be, relatively speaking? And if the IMD frequencies generated by the equipment have a different amplitude relationship than those produced by the guitar, will this make it more or less audible? 

 

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just asking questions, since these would seem possibly important to understand before declaring all IMD inaudible.

 

I’m working on all of that. This is a new concept as far as I can tell, so none of your questions has an answer yet - and they all deserve answers.  I hope I never said that IMD is inaudible because I don’t believe that.  What I do believe, based on the data I presented so far, is that IMD generated within devices in the playback chain (except maybe speakers) is so much lower in amplitude than that in the source plus that generated again acoustically when played back that it probably doesn’t affect SQ much if at all.  You show that the IMD produced by your app has the same components that are generated acoustically, so it may just be a drop in the bucket.

 

Of course, it could also be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. I’m trying to find out more about it.

 

Have a great evening!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, bluesman said:

What I said was neither pejorative nor directed at DISTORT.  I said that without knowing what is being done to the signal and how, any app that manipulates it is simply a "black box" - i.e. we have no idea what's being done inside it to create the output and whether there are other effects on the signal that are going unmeasured.  I was attempting (unsuccessfully) to find out more about the nonlineaerity that is said to add both IMD and THD.

 

I also said that without knowledge of what's being done to the signal, a box that adds distortion to a signal in an unknown way is simply an amusement ("carnival toy").  Again, I was trying to find out at least some specifics about what happens inside the black box.  Maybe DISTORT is a great thing that I'd find very useful to me - I don't know, because I can't find out how it does what it does. 

 

Please don't put words in my mouth or use my words out of context.

 

Sorry you felt I used your words out of context but "black box" and "carnival toy" are YOUR words.

 

I agree that for any app, and IMO that yes does include DISTORT (FWIW fitting the context), not being able to find out "what's being done inside it to create the output" or "whether there are other effects on the signal that are going unmeasured" ; and additionally in my words, how validly it achieves its purpose - that app/tool becomes "simply a black box". I also used the word "toy" (not "carnival toy").

 

I also said quite clearly that these tools may be valid but this would need to be confirmed, and if confirmed as claimed, shared. I do not consider this pejorative. Do you ?

[Confused]

Let's have a break for a tune:

 

 

Although not exactly pleasant to listen too, it is interesting to to hear the intermodulation as she varies the tone of her voice relative to the tone of the wine glass.  So you have a tone from the glass, a tone from the voice and a curious third tone that actually appears to be within you own ear.  

 

This is not really on topic, but it is a fun example of "real world" intermodulation.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 minutes ago, Confused said:

Let's have a break for a tune:

 

 

Although not exactly pleasant to listen too, it is interesting to to hear the intermodulation as she varies the tone of her voice relative to the tone of the wine glass.  So you have a tone from the glass, a tone from the voice and a curious third tone that actually appears to be within you own ear.  

 

This is not really on topic, but it is a fun example of "real world" intermodulation.

 

This is my favorite intermodulation tone interaction tune but I don't think it will lend itself to transfer functions for linear time-invariant  systems 😄

[Confused]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

This is my favorite intermodulation tone interaction tune but I don't think it will lend itself to transfer functions for linear time-invariant  systems 😄

I am not claiming to be an expert with respect to this, I'll take your word for it!

[kumakuma]

Deleted

[Patate91]

15 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The first step is not mine to make. You cannot or will not provide objective evidence that your apps "do exactly what they were designed to do and have been validated through independent testing". It appears you have entered one of your loops to obfuscate this fact. So I'll leave you to play with your toys 🙂...../end loop

 

It seems that you are misusing sceptism and science method for an unknown reason.

 

You can simply use and verify the app to see if it works.

 

Maybe you don't know how a plane works and can fly. You don't have access to all the data and how everything works. But still those planes are flying around the world.

[bluesman]

17 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

The tools are not designed to measure anything or to produce any subjective results. They do exactly what they were designed to do and have been validated through independent testing.

I just realized how to describe what’s missing here.  I have no reason to doubt that the tool in question does exactly what it was designed to do - so I don’t.  My question is whether and how we know that it does exactly and only what it was designed to do.  And that’s why knowing how it does what it does would be useful.  No medication has only one effect, and I suspect this is true of essentially every other intervention into a system with more than one running process.

If it has no confounding effect beyond the controlled addition of distortion products, DISTORT would be useful to add a measured amount of IM products to a signal so I could run repetitive play-record cycles to test my theory that playback yields a double dose of IM (i.e. both captured in the source program and created during playback of the same program).  I have to test this approach, because I’m not sure that digitally generated and/or processed signals interact the same way when played back through speakers that pure analog signals from generation to playback do.  So IMD in digital equipment and sources may be misleading compared to IMD in analog devices.

 

This is getting more interesting every day!