What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other

[NorthStar]

I disagree. :b

 

[fas42]

Fascinating, for me, is how it always comes back to distortion: objectivists worry about such that can be easily measured, subjectivists about the version that is easily heard. Unfortunately, there is not a great overlap of these 2 species of distortion, hence the "problem". A solution is to debate how the mechanisms and procedures for detecting all varieties of distortion can be improved; then I suspect these 2 breeds of audiophiles might see more eye to eye ...

Frank

 

[andromedaaudio]

Talking about distortion , take a look at this all purpose recordingmike specs , 80-12000 hz - 3 db
scroll down and you have the FR , its a respectable company .

http://nady.com/manuals/microphones/sp1.pdf

drums
http://nady.com/manuals/microphones/dm70_80.pdf

I ve looked at other recording mikes too(other companies ) , it looks like a lot of comprise from the start and certainly not a 100 % accoustic- electrical 1 on 1

Would a equalizer be the best after all :b

Maybe bruce can explain more ???

Another one already better , check out the FR diagram

http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=u87_data

 

[jkeny]

First.........Now, you are an audio manufacturer, and thats good. So, if music is not "near" sinewaves, care to educate the entire professional audio community on what it is?

Second.....what test out there is better than a null test for audio? Have you thought this through mate?


Tom

Tom, It's simple - Ethan makes a claim, I'm asking him to show the evidence - I'm sure you understand this type of request - it happens all the time with subjective claims. This is very pertinent to the topic of the thread, don't you think? Let's hope we can all learn a thing or two from one another?

So rather than talking about theoretical & mathematical concepts - let's talk about the real world, no?

If Ethan doesn't understand FFT's & their limitations as AndyC has already pointed out Ethan's misunderstanding about FFTs, maybe the whole concept of the difference between a single sine wave test Vs a test using real music escapes him? Let's see?

OK, just to clear things up - Ethan has made wild & inaccurate claims that about null test - that the null test will cancel each other completely - I asked for examples & test procedures of an actual test. Firstly, there is no such thing as absolute null - it has a resolution depth - maybe AndyC can say something about this using Diffmaker. Secondly, let's see some real-world tests rather than talking theoretically - here's one that I'm sure will give rise to some discussion http://www.thuneau.com/MPC/results.htm

 

[andromedaaudio]

In addition to my previous post it would explain why speakers with elevated bass sound more real .
Because they compensate for the recording mike roll off , so actually they are more neutral instead of a a flat measuring speaker .
What can be changed in mastering i dont know .
Dave wilson did record didnt he

hj

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If I've learned anything from this thread it's that labels have very limited use. Ethan makes me look like a subjectivist. Some of our most ardent subjectivists look like scientists compared to Frank. Life goes on.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Well the best all-in-one converter with AD/DA capabilities is the Digital Audio Denmark AX24. Give me a hi-rez file and I'll just make a loop out and in and capture the signal.

Now what cable should I use!!

Bruce,
What digital format are you referring to you when you address sound quality of ADC and DAC converters?

 

[rbbert]

Have a closer re-read of the reciprocity calibration section. I've repeated part of it below.

Sensitivity, sure. How about frequency response, distortion, etc?

 

[rbbert]

Hi rbbert.

We'll have to let them speak for themselves. Perfect is such an absolute term. I'd be surprised if, when either of them return to this thread, either one states any DAC is perfect. Audibly indistinguishable from one another under a proper scientific test, probably.

...DACs used to accurately convert digital audio to an analog signal? I'm not sure there is a lot of work left to be done...
Tim

... But that alone proves to me that one A/D/A pass can be truly transparent...
--Ethan

I've quoted both of those before just recently. "perfect" may be a word I chose for its shock value, but is it in fact very different from "truly transparent" or "not sure there is a lot of work to be done"?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I've quoted both of those before just recently. "perfect" may be a word I chose for its shock value, but is it in fact very different from "truly transparent" or "not sure there is a lot of work to be done"?

In my opinion it is very different. Transparent is used in the context of systems, and existing technology. Can a good ADC/DAC can digitize an analog signal, then convert it back to analog "transparently" enough that sophisticated listeners, in blind tests, listening to high-end systems, can not distinguish between the the original signal and the converted one more often than they could guess? Yes. This has been demonstrated a few times.

So DACs can be transparent within the limitations of those systems and, arguably, the current audio reproduction technology. We could get into the usual second-guessing of every wire in the system being used, down to dismissing the whole test because there is an A/B switch in the signal chain. Let's sidestep that; I'll just agree that there might be some system out there somewhere that would reveal a differece more consitently than the flip of a coin. But given that such tests are never, to my knowledge, conducted on cheap, unrevealing equipment with iPod addled teens fresh from a ear-battering rock concert, I conclude, having looked at lots of similar studies, that well-designed audio electronics can be, and often are, so close to transparent, the differences are so exceedingly small, that they are truly insignificant.

Now we can question "insignificant."

But personally, comparing the studies I've read to the enthusaist message board posts I've also read, I've further concluded that it must be much easier for someone expecting to hear some of these "differences" to perceive them as dramatic in a sighted test, than it is for anyone to hear them at all in a blind test. YMMV.

None of that has anything to do with "perfect." All of that has to do with context. None of this stuff is perfect. But good DACs, and many other things have shown themselves to be transparent in the context of the audio reproduction technology we have. That could, of course, change. If a transducer or room correction breakthrough comes along that allows a much more revealing playback of the best recordings, differences between the small stuff in between the two ends may get a lot more obvious. And "perfect" will still be evasive.

Tim

 

[Bruce B]

Bruce,
What digital format are you referring to you when you address sound quality of ADC and DAC converters?

PCM and DSD... both.

In my opinion it is very different. Transparent is used in the context of systems, and existing technology. Can a good ADC/DAC can digitize an analog signal, then convert it back to analog "transparently" enough that sophisticated listeners, in blind tests, listening to high-end systems, can not distinguish between the the original signal and the converted one more often than they could guess? Yes. This has been demonstrated a few times.
Tim

If I get a chance this week, I can post some files if anyone wants to suggest content.

 

[rbbert]

Tim,

A reasonable response, thank you. A big problem I (and I suspect others here) have is that blind tests similar to those you reference also show that moderate bit-rate MP3s are indistinguishable from CD-quality audio, a claim that I don't think you wish to make (but I could be wrong).

It's interesting (but not surprising) that the OP's suspicions put forth at the beginning of the topic seem to have been shown to be correct.

 

[andy_c]

Sensitivity, sure. How about frequency response, distortion, etc?

Sensitivity (in Volts per Pascal, where a Pascal is the unit of acoustic pressure), when measured over frequency, is the frequency response.

Distortion though, as Frank previously mentioned as well, is not covered by these techniques.

 

[rbbert]

Sensitivity (in Volts per Pascal, where a Pascal is the unit of acoustic pressure), when measured over frequency, is the frequency response.

Distortion though, as Frank previously mentioned as well, is not covered by these techniques.

It's not clear from what I've read that the objective sensitivity tests can be carried out at the full 20-20k Hz range (or beyond), but that could be covered in more detail in documentation I haven't yet read. However, I still strongly suspect that there is a point at which calibration involves an assumption about the relative accuracy of the signal generating transducer used for testing/calibration (almost certainly true for distortion measurements). I'd be happy to be wrong.

 

[Ron Party]

Tim,

A reasonable response, thank you.

As I thought, Tim did not state that to which you ascribed to him. Mischaracterizations abound, emanating from the first post in this thread.

A big problem I (and I suspect others here) have is that blind tests similar to those you reference also show that moderate bit-rate MP3s are indistinguishable from CD-quality audio, a claim that I don't think you wish to make (but I could be wrong).

Nope. No one who is being intellectually honest is making that claim. This ties in to the next statement:

It's interesting (but not surprising) that the OP's suspicions put forth at the beginning of the topic seem to have been shown to be correct.

There is virtually nothing in the OP's suspicions which is correct unless you believe in gross mischaracterizations and stereotypes. This was pointed out earlier in this thread. *Objectivists* don't listen to measurements and subjectivists don't ignore measurements, except at the lunatic fringe of each such characterization.

 

[Robh3606]

There is virtually nothing in the OP's suspicions which is correct unless you believe in gross mischaracterizations and stereotypes. This was pointed out earlier in this thread. *Objectivists* don't listen to measurements and subjectivists don't ignore measurements, except at the lunatic fringe of each such characterization.

Exactly I think most people are a mixture of both.

Rob

 

[Keith_W]

There is virtually nothing in the OP's suspicions which is correct unless you believe in gross mischaracterizations and stereotypes. This was pointed out earlier in this thread. *Objectivists* don't listen to measurements and subjectivists don't ignore measurements, except at the lunatic fringe of each such characterization.

In my experience, the people whom you ascribe to the "lunatic fringes" of both extremes are far more common than you think. Just today I saw someone on another forum claim that five generations of re-encoded MP3 is inaudible in a blind test, that his $100 Wal-mart CD player is perfect, etc. That is rubbish. Also rubbish are claims that Tice clocks, Shakti stones, Hallographs, Frank Tchang resonators, and power cords make a difference. Small minority? Enough of them to sustain an industry, apparently.

 

[Ron Party]

In my experience, the people whom you ascribe to the "lunatic fringes" of both extremes are far more common than you think.

Regrettably so. But hopefully here, at WBF, we can elevate our discussion of these kinds of matters with decorum and intellectual honesty.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Also rubbish are claims that Tice clocks, Shakti stones, Hallographs, Frank Tchang resonators, and power cords make a difference. Small minority? Enough of them to sustain an industry, apparently.

Keith_W,
I have no experience with most of the tweaks you refer, but in many systems I have listened to and mine power cords really make a difference. And if you ask WBF members about this point I think it will not be a minority who think so (although this does not imply truth of not truth of this statement).

 

[Ethan Winer]

So Ethan.... what is the "thermal noise over the audible band" of the MSB Studio ADC? Also... what is the "non" A-weighted measurements of the MSB Studio ADC. If you don't know.... don't respond. Besides, the graph spectrum shows the noise from 7.5k to 14.5k.. certainly within the "audible band".

Bruce, do you know what A-Weighting is and why it's used? Do you know when A-Weighting is and is not appropriate? If you don't know, don't respond.

Bruce, instead of being combative and insulting, a more appropriate reply would have been, "Ah, yes, I see your point."

I'll say it again: The theoretical thermal noise over the audio band at normal room temperature is somewhere around -131 dB. This is fact, not opinion. For the math challenged, just skip to the first table halfway down the page:

Johnson Noise

The entry for a 10 KHz bandwidth shows -134 dB, so when you double that to encompass a 20 KHz bandwidth, the noise rises another 3 dB = -131.

--Ethan