Jump to content

PeterSt

Members
  • Content Count

    8259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PeterSt

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It does not work like that. Clipping in digital means that no (digital) values exist beyond "a" level. I say "a" between quotes, because it just as well can be implied by soft clipping which has its threshold lower than the maximum digital headroom (though soft clipping can be more gentle as it may reach its max gradually. What you could refer to is wrong math, where at the maximum of e.g. +32768 of -32767 an other bit value is added, or subtracted respectively, which would cause 32768 + 1 = -32767. That's a full jump from the complete dynamic range (plus to minus voltage) of 65536, or e.g. 2VRMS x 2. That would make noise all right. So (DAW or Playback) software should incur for hard clipping instead of keep-on-adding. For example, if two channels are merged (added) and a value in the one channel would be +25,000 and in the other it would be +15,000 then the theoretical result of 40,000 can't be set for 16 bit data and it should be cut to +32768. It would imply a large clip (for in this case one sample (could be inaudible) but if half a second of such would subsequently occur, it would surely be audible (half a second of DC at +32767). Now you also know why multichannel DVD's can't be downmixed into 2 channels, because no mixing engineer took into account that this would ever happen, and the e.g. 6 channels were most often utilized in full (digital headroom) and they can't be "added" like that into 2 channels. No such a downmixed album sounds good because it is always messy (uneven attenuation per original channel). The example of a 5.1 to 2.0 sounding good is a Brothers in Arms 24/96 I have here. But there they just took 2 main channels, and dropped the others. Sounds good, but is of no value of course. PS: You may recall a story that multichannel (DVD) mixing engineers were ordered to leave sufficient headroom for theoretical downmixing, but they refused. Or they reserved 3dB or so for it, with just is not enough (merging 2 channels requires 6dB unused headroom in the original channels).
  2. ANY filter will bear anomalies. Actually the art of digital filtering is that they don't jump forward with a flavor (which is the anomaly). Especially "unfiltered" will exhibit anomalies. You and your 56 y/o ears should seek for the most conservative filter possible. Like the one I am using myself currently : 16KHz. So exactly that. And the more "conservative" the less anomaly. Mind you, in theory when all has been done right (Roon does not provide any of that). I know you can't work with the answer for real, but still it is the answer. OK, it is my answer. Peter
  3. What shall I say ... (hence a DAC with NO filter at all, but with a manufacturer's best because he also provides software you might like to use - and with clearly the option to use other software) I think the concept is still quite unique (with say Jussi and me on very similar controls), but the combination of DAC with "best" (filtering) software ... I don't think I am aware of such a combination elsewhere. So thinking PCM only, notice that the DAC has to be an R2R DAC or otherwise no (NOS) dice *and* the manufacturer has to supply a "best" filtering means, which preferably is not derived from some existing tool. PS: As far as I am aware, Jussi is the only one who went trough the trouble of supporting our NOS1 for its "two wire" capabilities (hence 24/768). PPS: I have always explicitly said that our DAC should be used by the filtering means (= player software) which sounds best. So I hope I am sufficiently neutral on this subject.
  4. I am sure he meant that (entry point : where you hook up). And earlier on I wanted to say exactly the same, but I think I scratched that. So length of interlinks from DUT towards Analyzer and what the type of interlink is (quite meaningless to about everybody, but very meaningful to myself). If I measure jitter, do I measure the clock in there, or at the output of the DAC (and at the end of interlinks etc.).
  5. Mine will be better, because it plays louder at the same distortion level. LOL Anyway, I have not run into any single situation that better measurement sounded equally good (or bad) or worse. In 100% of cases, worse measurement sounded vastly worse. I am not exaggerating. On some other side by now I have ran into the whole plethora of theoretical improvements which all sound better but which can't be measured any more. I have one exception : The Lush(^2) USB cable. This is the only thing I ever designed / created which went by ear and which explicitly does NOT obey standards (USB2 in this case). So this will measure worse. But tell me, what will we actually measure on the USB cable that will come out as worse ? is it sound ? Test signals (is also sound) ? Again ask Amir. He thinks he can do it. But he can't.
  6. I agree with that. But this is out of the context of each and every audiophile hunts for the better sound, no matter what gear he / she currently has. At some stage this may come down to measurements and the desire to interpret them. If I see a tube amp with a measured and shown noise floor of -100dB, I plainly know it will s*ck for sound. But you (and the million others) may happily accept it. So why not me ? easy : I know how that enormous pile of noise will sound (relative to what I am used to). I really know, you know. So I am a person that happily will try to dig into measurements. I could be quite alone, but ... but that does not mean that you should not either, *if* you want to improve at some stage. Please keep in mind that all we actually talk about (in my view) is the difference we may all have in that threshold of audibility. You may deem a THD of 0.04% OK for a 16/44.1 ladder DAC (this is quite standard for Redbook) because you think you won't hear the difference with a DAC showing 0.02%. Actually you really never heard a difference with anything showing better figures than 0.04% so there's your threshold. 😝 Now how come that once I recalled 8 DACs from the States because I found that the chips used showed 0.0035% instead of the 0.0018% for Redbook if only the volume was a bit lower than maximum (which latter is what we tend to test with). It was easily audible ! ... And it was originated by the really one and only NOS1 that was returned. Btw, of course I am not really stating that your 0.04% would be OK for you. It is just a number, knowing that all ladder DACs show that figure, if they are "NOS" at the same time. So it is a well accepted number, unless nobody likes those DACs.
  7. Btw, we turned in some kind of theory mode again; The thread is about the oddness of manufacturers showing measurements beyond audible threshold; I claim this threshold is not at the position at all where a million people think it is and that thus something is wrong with the stipulation (maybe a stipulation is always wrong - haha). So get the right "tools" and feel your woofers. If you start to feel a difference then all you need to learn is how to hear it. And I further claim that if you don't hear it, it is not beyond the audible threshold, no, it is only that you don't know what to listen for (in the midst of well chosen music which will be problem #1). You don't need vibro meters to feel differences, unless we now change the subjectivity of hearing to subjectivity of feeling.
  8. David, also see my last post; Whatever I do with a single frequency (I know, that could be too easy anyway), I won't be able to influence THD on the bass response by whatever setting or cable I implied in my previous post. All what can happen is that I overdrive matters and put too much Wattage into the woofer so it starts to distort. But we obviously leave that out. What could theoretically be done is that you'd run two "recordings" (of that vibro meter) of two situations which clearly feel different (hey, they should sound different, right ? - well, obviously they do) - and that you compare them and output the difference. This is what I do with normal recording (and that works) but this is not qualifiable. Only if you know which sounded best (is subjective) you could see the anomalies in the diff. But hey ... And mind you please, when the bass got better, the highs could have gone worse ...
  9. Not even that, unless you fall back to test signals. So do notice that I was not talking about test signals with the sines and the squarish mess etc. - it is to be about real music, e.g. containing a nice long organ pipe. So it is the lot which changes a particular "instrument" / sound. If such a thing would allow measurement from a single test signal (or 10 or 50 (IMD)) it would be easy. But it does not work like that at all. So you have, for example, a choir in a church loudly singing and let's say that the baritones do not run into your woofers. What I say is that the quality of your woofer's output (implied by the organ) is influenced in the electronic's path by the other frequencies. Change a few XXHighEnd settings et voilá. Or change to a different USB cable. Or change the configuration of it (oops). Change the computer processor's frequency. Everything matters. In this example it could be the impedance response of the power amp which is influenced by higher frequencies (and the higher frequencies may change by whatever the change you applied), now allowing for better (or worse) bass control. ... Like I said earlier, test your imagination on what all could happen in order to explain things (which is thus what I always try).
  10. I am pretty sure that would not work. Showing differences, however, will be easy. So it can't be qualified.
  11. It wouldn't be really different from the way I record and represent changes (I still see nobody doing that), although that way would be more indirect than "viewing" the speaker driver's surface. You started out so nicely, and I was ready to invite you over, but you end up saying that you do not own (or can possess) said equipment ? About everything which I change in the XXHighEnd software alone, is totally easily "feelable" at the woofers. It goes from nice sines (when intended to) to super square mess (sines still intended). So ... come over with that stuff ... please. 🤪
  12. Despite what you make of it, am I right or not ? Of course I am. 😉
  13. The point of my post from yesterday was that there is virtually no threshold of audibility. You (and millions more) seem to think this threshold exists. If it would exist, how can I and so many others point at the same virtue of random changes even without preparation, picking random tracks ? (and I obviously refer to matters which can't be measured) I appreciate it is too hard to grasp. But hopefully it comes across that at least one person (me) thinks that the whole subject of this thread is moot. Every smallest change is audible to me and my system and none of them can be measured with known equipment (or it can't realistically be bought because it costs millions (literally)). The crux is that every measurement I myself show, well regarded by you guys to be under the threshold of audibility is crucial because it is vastly audible. And then there is this whole plethora of "measurement" even under that level of today's possibilities of measurement, that still are audible. - Improve your listening skills; - Improve your system where needed (but it is my estimate this will be the least issue for most); - get the proper tools to vary the results (this may impede your imagination). Now iterate to the first step. The latter is totally crucial because if you don't have anything to vary, nothing will matter either. Think about this !
  14. Of course it is. But see, I put this out of context and the context is your opinion about it. That's why you (think you) can put it like that. But of course a better measuring product is better engineered etc. There are no coincidences here.
  15. Perhaps. But I don't think those objective leaning people know what's all going on for audibility, nor that they know what to listen for. They just don't listen at all, once their perception of that threshold is beyond their belief-of. I don't need to be objective, nor do I need to be a subjective in order to clearly - wait - utmost clearly perceive that differences are there between "situations". So really, I work the other way around and this is quite explicit: I perceive differences and next I try to work out what they are caused by. Also don't underestimate what trouble I go through to prove to myself (and the community) that a difference I perceive is not only between my ears but are for real. Most of these happenings have been written down in the Phasure forum by means of sometimes large essays. The essays describe how I deliberately applied a change, and perceive something from it which is explicit. Often it is about one perceived feature only, like e.g. the better attack of cymbals (envision a 100+ of such features more). So I did something, I perceive that better attack and next have to prove it is not for my ears only. And so I call out for my partner in crime, originally not an audiophile at all (but she became one during the process). In 100% of cases she came up with the exact same feature (in this example "a better attack on cymbals"). I repeat : these really numerous happenings have almost all been written down, mostly as a commercial teaser for an upcoming software release, a DAC upgrade, or whatever it is we do over here (which is a lot). Each and every situation I have described, is not measurable by any means that I know of (and I think I do have the equipment, or buy it if I think it is worth while). Each and every situation ever went with hints what to listen for. Also no vague hints as "it is in the highs area". Only : "do you hear a change ?". I have also described situations that for even 30 minutes a "I hear no change" was in order. But I (we) never gave up and in each end the verdict was there. In this regard it is good to know that during such a more difficult period of recognition, I may play a dozen tracks, me anticipating a whatever track emphasizing the feature better. [maybe stop reading here] The latter should not be underestimated; for me as well as for the auditioner, there is no such thing as A-B (really never). We only work with subsequent different tracks, but, they are selected by me because I (hopefully) know in which track what could be emphasized. This is not prepared. All I do, for example, is knowing that a certain frequency may be emphasized more and a better speed could imply more squareness; I may put up Since I've been Loving You (LZ), myself hoping for the squeaking of the bass pedal to be audible better, and wait for such a comment of in this case that partner, who has heard the track numerous time - so maybe the better squeaking (which I don't know myself yet !) is noticed. I could hear it, but if she does not, I may hop over to a Mark Knopfler track, because to my expectations his voice my bear similar properties. Never thing this is measurable. Also never think I am subjective. I work too hard to be not to.
×
×
  • Create New...