“Gaming” measurements

[PeterSt]

6 hours ago, March Audio said:

Its all related.  A limited bandwidth amp can only slew signals up to the rate that bandwidth dictates.

 

6 hours ago, opus101 said:

Hilarious -

 

Indeed.

[March Audio]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

Indeed.

I suggest you read the rest of the posts and understand the context and additional explanatory info instead of going down the opus rabbit hole. It's pretty simple.

 

 

[opus101]

14 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I suggest you read the rest of the posts and understand the context.

 

Clearly he has which is why he was able to crack the joke.

 

<later> Oh now I see you've added a gratuitous ad hominem. Wonders never cease! @PeterSt given a choice would the 'opus rabbit hole' be more appealing than the 'March hare hole' ?

[PeterSt]

14 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I suggest you read the rest of the posts and understand the context and additional explanatory info

 

I think I know what slew rate is. No need to read all the back and forth "discussions" for that.

 

Btw, someone in this thread owns a DAC with a 2000V/us.

Since you clearly also claim to know what slew rate is, maybe you can tell me the maximum frequency of this DAC ?

[March Audio]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I think I know what slew rate is. No need to read all the back and forth "discussions" for that.

 

Btw, someone in this thread owns a DAC with a 2000V/us.

Since you clearly also claim to know what slew rate is, maybe you can tell me the maximum frequency of this DAC ?

You haven't understood what I wrote and the relevance to amplitude.

 

I'm not going down this stupid argumentative  rabbit hole with you.  The thread has interesting discussions which can do without the crapping by certain individuals.

 

 

[March Audio]

@Jud just looking at the oohashi paper.  Something concerns me immediately in the method.

 

First, the source signals from the D/A converter of Y. Yamasaki's high-speed, one-bit coding signal processor were divided in two. Then, LFCs and HFCs were produced by passing these signals through programmable low-pass and high-pass filters (FV-661, NF Electronic Instruments, Tokyo, Japan), respectively, with a crossover frequency of 26 or 22 kHz and a cutoff attenuation of 170 or 80 dB/octave, depending on the type of test

 

What was the impact of this extremely steep filter?

[Jud]

51 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Does anyone say that now?

 

Which is pretty interesting, since at least with headphones we ought to have a chain that's damn near perfect in all the measurables considered important (or more accurately, that I've seen discussed as important).

[Jud]

10 minutes ago, March Audio said:

@Jud just looking at the oohashi paper.  Something concerns me immediately in the method.

 

First, the source signals from the D/A converter of Y. Yamasaki's high-speed, one-bit coding signal processor were divided in two. Then, LFCs and HFCs were produced by passing these signals through programmable low-pass and high-pass filters (FV-661, NF Electronic Instruments, Tokyo, Japan), respectively, with a crossover frequency of 26 or 22 kHz and a cutoff attenuation of 170 or 80 dB/octave, depending on the type of test

 

What was the impact of this extremely steep filter?

 

So you've been commenting on Oohashi without reading the paper?

[March Audio]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

So you've been commenting on Oohashi without reading the paper?

No, I am refreshing my memory.  I read it a long time ago. However my previous comments would have been relevant even if I hadn't read the paper, ie its disagreement with many previous studies.

 

[March Audio]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Which is pretty interesting, since at least with headphones we ought to have a chain that's damn near perfect in all the measurables considered important (or more accurately, that I've seen discussed as important).

Actually headphone listening is very variable.  The anatomy of everyone's ear is different.  The enclosed listening "chamber" varies from person to person with different resonance frequencies and amplitudes.

 

People's opinions on headphones seem to vary significantly and for good reason.

 

[Jud]

1 minute ago, March Audio said:

Actually headphone listening is very variable.  The anatomy of everyone's ear is different.  The enclosed listening "chamber" varies from person to person with different resonance frequencies and amplitudes.

 

IEMs? In that case everyone's anatomy still varies, but you've got the same situation with live performance, we're all listening through our own ear anatomies.

[March Audio]

4 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Actually headphone listening is very variable.  The anatomy of everyone's ear is different.  The enclosed listening "chamber" varies from person to person with different resonance frequencies and amplitudes.

 

People's opinions on headphones seem to vary significantly and for good reason.

 

 

 

At the end of the day microphones don't "hear" in the same way as two ears and a brain.  Recordings will only ever be a facsimile of listening live. 

[March Audio]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

IEMs? In that case everyone's anatomy still varies, but you've got the same situation with live performance, we're all listening through our own ear anatomies.

Not in an enclosed replay chamber of the headphone ear.

 

It's why the test dummy heads have standardised ear shapes.

 

Unlike speakers (anechoichly measured) headphone responses are not flat, far from it.

 

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Not in an enclosed replay chamber of the headphone ear.

 

Any article references for the difference this makes?

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

 

At the end of the day microphones don't "hear" in the same way as two ears and a brain.  Recordings will only ever be a facsimile of listening live. 

 

There are binaural (even binaural "dummy head") recordings. And of course generations of fine engineers have worked on miking techniques. Are they doing so poorly after all this time?

[PeterSt]

7 hours ago, March Audio said:

What I meant by that comment was quite clear.  I was referring to a similar amplitude signal in which case of course a higher frequency signal has a higher rate of change than a lower frequency signal. 

 

You're referring to that, right ?

Well, although that in itself is true, it is not related to the phenomenon slew rate.

 

 

36 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I'm not going down this stupid argumentative  rabbit hole with you.  The thread has interesting discussions which can do without the crapping by certain individuals.

 

Wrong. It can do without all of your BS.

What do you actually think ? "the louder I shout the more I will be right" ?

 

Go ahead. You could win the award of having three threads closed within two weeks on your behalf.

 

 

[March Audio]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Any article references for the difference this makes?

See the free field v at ear response above.  Just look at any headphone test Web site of the responses compared to the responses of speakers which should be flat when anechoicly measured.

 

https://audioxpress.com/article/Headphone-Testing-Part-1-The-Basics

[March Audio]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

There are binaural (even binaural "dummy head") recordings. And of course generations of fine engineers have worked on miking techniques. Are they doing so poorly after all this time?

Binaural results are very variable, including thecresult from person to person.  They really don't work well or are convincing to me.

[March Audio]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

You're referring to that, right ?

Well, although that in itself is true, it is not related to the phenomenon slew rate.

 

 

 

Wrong. It can do without all of your BS.

What do you actually think ? "the louder I shout the more I will be right" ?

 

Go ahead. You could win the award of having three threads closed within two weeks on your behalf.

 

 

You are the one continuing to crap the thread. Just putting you on ignore.

[PeterSt]

Just now, March Audio said:

Just putting you on ignore.

 

Let's see. It could help.

[March Audio]

Sennheiser HD650 response

 

 

However this is the response on a HATS with a specific ear shape.  It will be a bit different on me and on you.

[March Audio]

4 hours ago, semente said:

 

 

Also we’ve never been bothered by lack of ultrasonics in the analogue days when both mics and tape and vinyl and amplifiers and speakers low-passed the spectrum above 20kHz.

 

Perhaps we should concentrate on addressing the “limitations” of digital filtering instead?

 

Also many tweeters, most of them with hard domes, produce significant to massive resonance peaks between 20 and 30 kHz, perhaps we should also consider pushing that above 30kHz?

And then the noise-shaping will have to move the grit higher up in frequency.

 

And finally other than close-mic’ed cymbals and triangles and a couple of other, most instruments are not producing much energy above 20kHz.

Even the close-mic’Ed trumpet FR that’s usually used as evidence is already below -36dBFs by 25kHz:

 

 

https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

So it the crash cymbals that contain the most ultrasonic energy according thatcstudy.  No real surprise I suppose.

 

Instruments With Harmonics

Fig. Instrument SPL Harmonics Percentage (dB) Visible To of Power What Freq.? Above 20 kHz

1. Trumpet (Harmon mute) 96. >50 kHz 0.5

2. Trumpet (Harmon mute) 76. >80 " 2.

3. Trumpet (straight mute) 83. >85 " 0.7

4. French horn (bell up) 113. >90 " 0.03

5. French horn (mute) 99. >65 " 0.05

6. French horn 105. >55 " 0.1

7. Violin (double-stop) 87. >50 " 0.04

8. Violin (sul ponticello) 77. >35 " 0.02

9. Oboe 84. >40 " 0.01

 
Instruments Without Harmonics

Fig. Instrument SPL 10 dB Above Percentage (dB) Bkgnd. to of Power What Freq.? Above 20 kHz

10. Speech Sibilant 72. >40 kHz 1.7

11. Claves 104. >102 " 3.8

12. Rimshot 73. >90 " 6.

13. Crash Cymbal 108. >102 " 40.

14. Triangle 96. >90 " 1.

15. Keys jangling 71. >60 " 68.

16. Piano 111. >70 " 0.02

 

 

[manueljenkin]

43 minutes ago, March Audio said:

 

 

At the end of the day microphones don't "hear" in the same way as two ears and a brain.  Recordings will only ever be a facsimile of listening live. 

Yet there's people around claiming sine squiggle numbers taken from microphones to be the end all be all for headphone performance. 😁

[GoldenOne]

4 hours ago, Iving said:

"Remain open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out."

This is an excellent quote

[March Audio]

7 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Yet there's people around claiming sine squiggle numbers taken from microphones to be the end all be all for headphone performance. 😁

I don't think it will be too long before we see headphones that test the listeners specific ear canal / pinnae response and dsp the response to suit.