What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

You're dismissing a respected scientific tool that has been effectively used for decades in testing many things infinitely more important than audio because of an isolated result? Where are these tests? What was the methodology? How many trials were run? Did they even get a statistically significant sample? Even if all the right answers are there for all of those quesitons, what one study proves is that in that study, with those samples, with that equipment, those participants were unable to tell the difference more often than they could guess.

This is the case with all such studies. They indicate, they do not prove. Now, if you had half a dozen studies conducted over time by different people with different samples, systems and participants and the results were consistent, that's getting mighty close to proof.

For my part, here's what I believe: I believe there are listeners out there who are trained to hear codec compression artifacts. Amir is one of them. I think the most experienced among them can't not hear these artifacts, even when listening to very high quality codecs at 320kbps and above. But most have to listen for them, not to the music to hear them. Civilians? If just your average room full of audiophiles were claiming they could ID 320kbps AAC file from lossless, 8 out of 10 times on average, I'd lay serious money on the table.

Tim
 
Please show such a test & the results - I presume you have done many to make these claims?

There are several such tests in my AES Audio Myths video, and you can download the original files from my web site using the link in the video description.

Ah the old canard "music is just a series of sine waves" so we can just use a sine wave in our tests/measurements - it's the same as music. Wrong! You really should stop trotting out worm out mantras as evidence. If you don't know how testing a music signal might differ from testing a sine wave then you are really so far away from what real music reproduction is about that you couldn't possibly be serious!

I take it you haven't been arguing in audio forums for very long. :D Rule #1: Saying "wrong" with no further explanation is not saying anything at all. If you believe Fourier was wrong, I don't know what to tell you. But rather than just call you wrong back, I'll actually provide evidence:

Fourier Series

--Ethan
 
Thus my confusion, rbbert. Has anyone (and, in particular, Ethan & Tim, since Tom just replied) posted perfect reproduction is attainable?

The reason a recording played in your living room does not sound like sitting in the 10th row of a concert hall has nothing to do with the fidelity of the audio devices, and that includes the microphones and speakers. Yes, mics and speakers are worse than circuits, and are rarely totally transparent, but good ones are very close. Again - not aimed at you, but at others who fail to differentiate this basic concept - the elusive "sounds like being there" is all about acoustics. It's unrelated to fidelity, and inserting that into a thread about "gear" fidelity just confounds the discussion with unrelated and irrelevant issues.

--Ethan
 
I've done that dozens of times right here in this forum, in threads you've been part of. Here you go again:

Audiophoolery

There's even more detail and depth in my upcoming book.

--Ethan

I saw a definition of most everything BUT "fidelity"
 
But notice no mention is made of distortion: this is a hard one to crack, a whole lot of technique would have to go into getting something like valid measurements of this.

Yes! Measuring the distortion of microphones and speakers is a chicken and egg because you need to know one before you can measure the other. I devised a partial solution, also explained in my book (sorry for the self-promo, but I've been up to my eyeballs in this for a year). THD and IMD are intimately related, and generally rise and fall together. You can measure the IMD of a microphone by playing two different sine waves at unrelated frequencies through two speakers at the same time. So you can get a rough idea of the microphone's distortion, which can then be used to measure a speaker. It's not a complete solution, but good mics often have less distortion than most speakers, so you can roughly assess both.

--Ethan
 
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. :rolleyes:

I figured you didn't know and though you respond anyway.... Oh well, I should have learned...besides, if you had really looked at the chart, even YOU should know that an A-weighted measurement at 10k is only down 2.49dB :rolleyes:

I'm out of here...
 
Last edited:
I saw a definition of most everything BUT "fidelity"

Really Steve? Did you read the article? Here's the most relevant part that defines fidelity (stated as audio quality in the first sentence, which is the same thing):

Audiophoolery said:
Only four parameters are needed to define everything that affects audio quality: Noise, frequency response, distortion, and time-based errors. Let's look at each of these parameters in turn.

Noise is the background hiss you hear when you turn your receiver way up, and you can also hear it during quiet passages when playing open reel or cassette tapes. A close cousin is dynamic range, which defines the span (expressed in decibels) between the background noise and the loudest level possible before the onset of gross distortion. CDs and DVDs have a very large dynamic range, so any noise you may hear was either from the original analog tape, was added as a byproduct during production, or was present in the room and picked up by the microphones when the recording was first made.

Subsets of noise are AC power-related hum and buzz, electronic crackling, vinyl record clicks and pops, between-station radio noises, tape modulation noise, cross-talk, windows that rattle and buzz at high volume levels, and the triboelectric cable effect. You're unlikely to notice tape modulation noise outside of a recording studio because it's specific to analog tape recorders, which are fast becoming obsolete, and usually hidden by the music itself. You can sometimes hear it if you listen carefully to a recording of a bass solo, where each note is accompanied by a "pfft" sound that disappears between the notes. The triboelectric effect is also called "handling noise" because it occurs when handling poorly made cables. I haven't seen a cable with this defect in about 20 years.

Frequency response is how uniformly a device responds over a range of frequencies. Errors are heard as too much or too little bass, midrange, or treble. For most people, the audible range extends from about 25 Hz at the low end, to just shy of 20 KHz at the high end. Even though many audiophiles believe it's important for audio equipment to respond to frequencies far beyond 20 KHz, in truth there is no need to reproduce ultrasonic content because nobody can hear it. Subsets of frequency response are physical microphonics, electronic ringing and oscillation, and acoustic ringing. These subsets are not necessary for consumers to understand, but they are important to design engineers and acousticians.

Distortion is the common word for the more technical term nonlinearity, and it adds new frequency components that were not present in the original source. When music passes through a device that adds distortion, new frequencies are created that may or may not be pleasing to the ear. The design goal for audio equipment is that all distortion be so low in level it can't be heard. I'll return later to the notion that distortion can be pleasing when I explain why some audiophiles prefer vinyl records and tube-based electronics.

There are two basic types of distortion - harmonic and intermodulation - and both are almost always present together. Harmonic distortion adds new frequencies that are musically related to the source. In layman terms, harmonic distortion adds a slightly thick or buzzy quality to music. All musical instruments create tones having harmonics, so a device whose distortion adds a little more merely changes the instrument's character by some amount. Electric guitar players use harmonic distortion - often lots of it - to turn a guitar's inherent plink-plink sound into a singing tone having great power and sustain.

Intermodulation (IM) distortion requires two or more frequencies to be present, and it's far more damaging because it creates new content that is not musically related to the original. Even in relatively small amounts, intermodulation distortion adds a dissonant quality that is unpleasant to hear. Another type of distortion is called aliasing, and it's unique to digital recording. Like IM distortion, aliasing creates new frequencies not harmonically related to the original, and so is unpleasant and irritating to hear. Fortunately, in all modern digital gear, aliasing is so low in level that it's inaudible.

Time-based errors affect mainly pitch and tempo. If you've ever played an old LP record where the hole was not quite centered, you've heard the pitch rise and fall with each revolution. This is called wow. Analog tape recorders suffer from a different type of pitch instability called flutter. Unlike the slow pitch change of wow, flutter is much more rapid giving a warbling effect. Digital recorders have a unique type of timing deviation called jitter, but with all modern equipment, jitter is so much softer than the music that you'll never hear it. The last type of time-based error is phase shift, but it's benign even in relatively large amounts.

Room acoustics could be considered a fifth audio parameter, but it really isn't. Nearby room boundaries can create frequency response errors (called comb filtering) due to wave reflections combining in the air. Reflections can also create audible echoes and reverb, but these are time-based phenomenon that occur outside the equipment, so they don't warrant their own category either. Likewise, with power amplifiers, maximum output power is important. But that's not related to fidelity - it merely states how loudly the amplifier can play.

The above parameters encompass everything that affects audio fidelity. If a device has noise and distortion too low to hear, a response sufficient to capture the entire range of audible frequencies, and time-based errors small enough to be insignificant, then that device will be audibly transparent to music and other sound passing through it. However, clarity and stereo imaging are greatly affected by room acoustics; without question, the room you listen in has far more effect on sound quality than any of the audio components.
 
I've done that dozens of times right here in this forum, in threads you've been part of. Here you go again:

Audiophoolery

There's even more detail and depth in my upcoming book.

--Ethan

Do you mean this?

The above parameters encompass everything that affects audio fidelity. If a device has noise and distortion too low to hear, a response sufficient to capture the entire range of audible frequencies, and time-based errors small enough to be insignificant, then that device will be audibly transparent to music and other sound passing through it. However, clarity and stereo imaging are greatly affected by room acoustics; without question, the room you listen in has far more effect on sound quality than any of the audio components.

Will you lock this down as your final answer Mr. Winer?

My, my, my. The truth doth have lots of wiggle room by your definition. If I read correctly you are saying something is only as transparent as the listener's ears are acute. That is what audibility is yes? Something is truthful as long as you can't hear the lies?
 
Last edited:
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

Those numbers for Johnson noise you're referring to are dBm, which is a measure of noise power computed by:

dBm = 10 * log10(P / 1e-3)

where P is the noise power in Watts over the bandwidth of interest and the 1e-3 term says that the power is relative to 1mW. So this is in essence an absolute noise power measure, even though it's expressed as a ratio. Further, that power is the available noise power, that is, the power delivered into a matched load. But such matching is almost never done at audio frequencies - only with RF and microwave systems.

The original discussion in which this came up was related to maximum SNR, the ratio of the RMS value of a full-scale sine wave signal to the RMS value of the quantization noise. The RMS value of the quantization noise is computed under the assumption that it has a uniform probability density function with limits of +/-0.5 LSB. This is where the approximation of:

SNRmax in dB ~= 6 * num_bits

comes from. So one is an absolute power level expressed as dB relative to 1mW, the other is an SNR computed by:

SNR = 20 * log10(VRMSs / VRMSn)

where VRMSs = RMS value of full-scale sine wave signal
and VRMSn = RMS value of quantization noise

The theoretical maximum 144 dB SNR number for a 24-bit system is, as you say, not achievable in practice because of the thermal noise of the analog system that interfaces with it. But referring to noise power in dBm to justify that is mixing apples and oranges. The actual RMS noise of the analog system is more complex to compute, and is not done using available noise power techniques, because those techniques assume impedance matching - which is almost never done in the audio range.
 
The theoretical maximum 144 dB SNR number for a 24-bit system is, as you say, not achievable in practice because of the thermal noise of the analog system that interfaces with it. But referring to noise power in dBm to justify that is mixing apples and oranges. The actual RMS noise of the analog system is more complex to compute, and is not done using available noise power techniques, because those techniques assume impedance matching - which is almost never done in the audio range.

Understood, I like to keep things simple. But the bottom line is that 1) all 24-bit converters have inherent noise much higher than the theoretical limit of 24 bits, and 2) even if they could achieve such a low noise level, it will always be swamped out by noise from the room, microphones, and preamps (other than purely software synthesizers).

--Ethan
 
Very true indeed; noise is present everywhere.
...Mechanical noise, electrical noise, other environmental noises (fridge, freezer, phone lines, cable lines, ...), outside noise that gets inside, transformers on stand-by, background noise (radio waves, high pitch from natural elements like wind, tree branches, birds, etc.), and a bunch more noise from various directions and at different frequencies ...
Even turning your head only a centimeter in one direction effects another variation of noises.

Ultra low frequencies (wind turbines, ocean waves, etc.) and ultra high frequencies affect other human frequencies of the auditory range.
And bouncing sounds create new distortions (noise).

But then, Live Music is even more noisy. :b ...Guitar amps buzzing, ....
 
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.

...
Nope. No one who is being intellectually honest is making that claim.

... If just your average room full of audiophiles were claiming they could ID 320kbps AAC file from lossless, 8 out of 10 times on average, I'd lay serious money on the table.

Tim

You know, Ron, you and I apparently interpret the same statement in different ways, and you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that your interpretation is the correct one.
 
Last edited:
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.

I have not seen any real evidence presented, or even an opinion (from the objectivists), that they do listen. Tim states in his profile that his cheap Panasonic receiver and unnamed headphones produce fantastic sound. That may be his opinion, and without naming his headphones I can't directly compare, but I have a pretty nice mid-fi digital setup driving my Sennheiser HD-600's, and although it sounds enjoyable, no way would I call it fantastic. Perhaps more to the point, I've heard a fair number of fairly expensive systems put together by pro-audio people that don't sound "good" or "natural", and they (the owners) don't even notice that!
 
Thank you Bruce! <thumbs-up>

--Ethan

IMHO, one of the more inane posts I've read anywhere.

I would think that, given the growing importance of audio shows and the inherent difficulty of getting good sound at them, that Ethan's services would be much in demand in setting up any number of rooms. Why isn't that happening?
 
^^^ We regularly provide treatment at all the major audio shows, even if we don't attend in person. We just had a bunch of products at the Montreal show.

--Ethan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu