...
Just as an aside a super fascinating starting line to the OP... you have probably started more audio based threads than anyone here, and lots with very super intently audiophile style questions, you are constantly talking about gear and audiophile process like system setup, debating the differences between formats and types of gear... just wondering how are you not an audiophile? Also why is it the opening statement... is it actually relevant to the topic at hand or is it just a bit of additional noise to get some attention to the thread. It's very cool to be in denial but all of us who spend as many hours pondering audio systems will struggle to avoid the tag I reckon.
This "noise" is an unwanted artifact that masks the musical information that is present in the recording.
Two types of noise in audio systems:
1) background noise that is always present, hiss, hum etc..
2) noise that superimposes or "rides" on the music waveform - it's not audible until you play a track
#2 is harder to identify and diagnose, but it's very real.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Tao,
Thanks. You are definitely correct. I think a lot about making my system better. Yet I don't see myself as an audiophile because I don't really buy into a lot of the orthodoxies of the audiophile hobby. I kind of see myself more of a guy who enjoys a luxury experience of listening to my system 10-12 hours a week. Because I have so many things going on in life, and this is just one hobby of many, I step away from it and bring an outsider's perspective. I also have deep background in applied economics and behavioral sciences, so I see the hobby, including the marketing and persuasion, through that lens.
A more accurate description of my position to the audiophile world is Georg Simmel's construct of the Stranger - as I straddle the outskirts of the audiophile social network. Some of the reasons for not getting "more inside" include:
- I see the audiophile culture as kind of bankrupt. It is a subjective hobby, yet experiences aren't properly shared
- The elites and reviewers are mis-incentivized and not properly educated on subjectivism, so they spread a lot of false information, making people waste time and money auditioning gear that doesn't fit their taste
- Many of the elites act is if they have superior, mystical senses because they imagine certain things inside their minds better than someone else, as evidenced by the recent physical confrontation between "Great" Peter Breuninger and "Sterile" Jon Valin about the "best turntable"
- many audiophiles play the "Plato's cave game" and compare their system to actual live performances, which, being a realist and an Aristotelian, I find silly
- many audiophiles love to argue that their taste is better than someone else's, hence all the tubes vs. ss, digital vs. vinyl debates, etc., when all types of technologies put people in a state of musical flow and bliss
- Most of the systems I have heard suck. The better ones may do some things well, such as the see-through transparency of a Martin Logan, resolution of a Magoco, dynamics of a Wilson or a Vivid, expression of the midrange by a horn, tonality of great tube gear, etc., but I have experienced very few systems that are truly magical
... I can go on and on...
Is there any evidence that the noise can "ride" on the music waveform? That implies that the noise will vary with the signal.Two types of noise in audio systems:
1) background noise that is always present, hiss, hum etc..
2) noise that superimposes or "rides" on the music waveform - it's not audible until you play a track
#2 is harder to identify and diagnose, but it's very real.
- many argue that electrical noise can either hitch along for the ride affecting downstream reception and/or be incorporated into and alter the audio signal.
David
Is there any evidence that the noise can "ride" on the music waveform? That implies that the noise will vary with the signal.
What seems more likely to me is that the music "rides" on the noise and the noise has a stochastic influence on the music signals.
Is there any evidence that the noise can "ride" on the music waveform? That implies that the noise will vary with the signal.
What seems more likely to me is that the music "rides" on the noise and the noise has a stochastic influence on the music signals.
There is interaction between the two, even if the noise content is random. The interaction can result in a stochastic resonance in which sub-noise threshold audio can be made audible and supra-threshold signals can be amplified if they fall into the noise frequency bandwidth.I'm not sure the distinction between the two matter as you can see noise as it's own waveform or summed with the music waveform. Both are correct afaik. But the noise isn't audible and so it doesn't technically change what you'd actually hear... it's not audible. But it does, it has some negative side effects unrelated to how the two waveforms sum.
it's hard to separate the concept of noise from the concept of distortion. maybe distortion is a type of noise.
Is there any evidence that the noise can "ride" on the music waveform? That implies that the noise will vary with the signal.
What seems more likely to me is that the music "rides" on the noise and the noise has a stochastic influence on the music signals.
Finally there is negative feedback itself. Negative feedback reduces the levels of lower order harmonics and results in the generation of high order harmonics. This has been demonstrated by Baxandall, Crowhurst, Pass and others. The argument is that THD is reduced but as Crowhurst pointed out you get an endless array of high order harmonics, multiples of multiples of multiples.
Absolutely. Think microphonics and vibration issues with a piece of gear with a tube(s) Kal. The unwanted artifact will most definitely "ride" the signal.Is there any evidence that the noise can "ride" on the music waveform? That implies that the noise will vary with the signal.
Generally you're right. But the frequency of the noise is a dependent variable. Depending on whether the noise comes is the other variable.
High frequency RF is so problematic that to counter the effects at the point of say a transistor, actually presents some challenges. In that situation it's very easy & typical for the two to become one in the same, even though the noise could be coming from the signal source. Something to point out is that devices that have a bandwidth that say stops at 45mhz, don't stop anything higher than that from going through them or interacting. The point is that after 45mhz they can't accurately control the higher frequencies, and parasitics can take over. Parasitics like how much capacitance they have, lending aid to RF jumping around, etc.
Now I claimed "problems" but the reality is countless manufacturers and countless audiophiles outright enjoy the benefit of added noise, in the right frequency spectrum. Generally speaking noise that's low in the RF or in the audible range is bad for clarity in the music. But RF at some point actually brings clarity in the sense that it drives details forward. It's artificial, and not my preference, but some people seriously enjoy hearing what what was dominated by the fundamentals of the music prior.
You can force feedback into many more high order harmonics, but you don't really see amp designers doing that much these days. Generally speaking they are pretty good at it and the harmonics peter-out after the 3rd, in a hurry. It's important to note that you're not increasing the distortion level, you're just rearranging it. But the higher the frequency the less it was reduced, so it can look as though you increased some distortion, even though the reality is it just didn't go down as much.
![]() | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |