Interestingly, I've been surprised to see real clipping in jazz and classical tracks, to name but two genres, from CD - but never picked it from the listening - only after ripping and examining the waveform, then in a handful of spots one can see the "naughtiness". While listening this was never noticeable - the transient nature of it, along with well behaved electronics doesn't seem to cause audible issues ...
Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl
- Thread starter Steve Williams
- Start date
- Status
And yet on "another forum" you state:
Does this extract mean that what may be "inaudible" with test tones (your "deafness" to > 17KHz) can be audible when dynamic music signals are involved - is that a correct interpretation of the above quote?
Can you explain the "current theory" for how this works - what does this mean "the ear sees audios samples one at a time" & have you got some references to this, please?
Last edited:
To answer the question what is better - analog or cd , we should focus on different things than measurements of sinus wave and distortion, I believe.
In my opinion that is the amount of dopamine produced in the brain that is better criterion
In my opinion that is the amount of dopamine produced in the brain that is better criterion
Attachments
Last edited:
Yes..it all boils down to drugs.. naturally produced in the body or fermented, hydroponically grown or synthesized in a lab ....will turn your crosley/$69 CDP into the best you ever heard
I know that, which means you have missed my point. I have repeated often enough on these forums that a noise floor in the digital domain doesn't even have to remotely audible to effect the actual music itself. That is the big problem with digital - the inaudible noise can profoundly effect what we are capable of hearing - the music itself. I can't even hear a 16 bit noise floor let alone a 24 bit one at my normal listening levels. But if the noise floor is different on otherwise precisely identical material, the actual music sounds different. That is my point. It has nothing to do with thresholds of audibility. A section of first violins playing a fortissimo line in a Mahler symphony - so right up there - perhaps only -3dBFS, will sound different if the noise floor changes at levels far, far, lower than we can ever possibly hope to hear. You can add dither to an existing 24 bit recording using 24 bit depth noise shaping (to simply introduce additional noise at levels far beyond what any of us have the slightest hope of hearing) and yet by doing exactly this you can make two otherwise identical excerpts sound different, even though you are altering them by noise shaping at the 24 bit level. That is far below the -116 levels you are talking about.
Hi
Some technical terms have become part of the audiophile vernacular. In this case "Noise Floor". Back then when in graduate studies: "Noise" was any and all unwanted signals. The sum of all unwanted signals, is the "Noise Floor". If it(The Noise Floor is at -140 dB there is no way for the human ear to perceive it. From memory and what I think I know. To avoid further confusion, I would like to see something beyond speculation. I ,among many don't hear, such things.
Something to me that needs to be kept in mind when discussing about noise and S/N ratio. -120 dB is the Thermal noise level of a resistor, unavoidable, always present... If a S/N of 70 dB doesn't bother I don't fully comprehend the contribution of noise within the realm of a -110 dB or lower S/N ratio.
Some technical terms have become part of the audiophile vernacular. In this case "Noise Floor". Back then when in graduate studies: "Noise" was any and all unwanted signals. The sum of all unwanted signals, is the "Noise Floor". If it(The Noise Floor is at -140 dB there is no way for the human ear to perceive it. From memory and what I think I know. To avoid further confusion, I would like to see something beyond speculation. I ,among many don't hear, such things.
Something to me that needs to be kept in mind when discussing about noise and S/N ratio. -120 dB is the Thermal noise level of a resistor, unavoidable, always present... If a S/N of 70 dB doesn't bother I don't fully comprehend the contribution of noise within the realm of a -110 dB or lower S/N ratio.
Last edited:
I agree with Franz.
These days the noise floor is determined by LP surface noise, tape hiss and ambient noise which includes your own breathing sounds--NOT anything put out by the electronics of the system. If you hear any sound other than the program material from the electronics of your system through the speakers, SEND IT FOR REPAIRS!
These days the noise floor is determined by LP surface noise, tape hiss and ambient noise which includes your own breathing sounds--NOT anything put out by the electronics of the system. If you hear any sound other than the program material from the electronics of your system through the speakers, SEND IT FOR REPAIRS!
Sorry FF , I dont believe the theory that noise at such minuscule sub audible levels can affect what you hear and that it in any way puts any "grunge" for lack of a better word , into digital playback
This blanket statement is manifestly inaccurate. Feel free to write that is it not a problem obvious to you. That would be an accurate statement. I am happy for you that you do not have any problem listening to any digital.
Listening fatigue from digital is obvious to everyone who experiences it.
Your last statement is nonsensical. Of course listening fatigue would only be obvious to those who think they hear it. Those of us who prefer digital don't hear this glare you think is so obvious.
If analog was the option I'd be out of this hobby in a second.
Yes. Maybe it is something that has a different name like jitter, timing issues, high frequency glare or distortion. When I experience it, it reminds me of a very high buzzing like a mosquito but at an even higher frequency and I can't relax and become involved with the music when I hear it in a system. Some people are just less, or not at all, susceptible to it. I don't know why. I don't know if it can even be measured. Perhaps that is why some people doubt it even exists, or they proclaim that it does not.
I once suffered from temporary tinnitus after going to a rock concert without earplugs. For two days I had this ringing/buzzing in one ear and it drove me crazy. I'll never do that again. For me, the sensation is similar, but it is a higher frequency with digital fatigue overlaying all the music in some systems. It does not seem to be inherent in the digital format, because I have heard three examples of digital replay that does not have it. So I think it is dependent upon implementation, as Al M suggested.
If digital fatigue can't be measured, and it can't be heard by a particular individual, then it will be very difficult to convince him that you hear it. On the other hand, I do hear most or all of the inherent flaws in vinyl, and I am not as bothered by them. I think it is because in very good analog front ends, most of these issues are more or less addressed.
I wonder which is worse: jumping up in one's seat every time he hears a pop or tick from an LP (a rather funny image) or losing interest in the music or even having to leave the room after half an hour because of listening fatigue?
Precisely. The phenomenon of digital glare (which in your case induces fatigue) is real, and I have heard it too, even though I am less sensitive to it than you are, Peter. And some digital playback does not have it, as you say.
I wonder why it is so hard for some of my fellow digiphiles to accept that the phenomenon of digital glare is real and can be heard by some. I am a digital-only guy myself, and will never have analog playback in my system for various reasons, but I have no problem acknowledging the phenomenon. My previous digital playback with a Wadia 12 DAC also had it to a much greater extent than my current one does with the Berkeley Alpha DAC 2 (where to my ears it is minimal).
Just because you can't currently measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you hear it but can't measure it, then it's not your ears' fault or automatically a figment of your imagination, but rather a limitation of our current methods of measurement. They need to be refined, because in principle every sound phenomenon must be measurable. There is no magic involved.
Digital glare.
If you hear it, it exists. If you don't, it doesn't. I don't. Others apparently do.
Maybe I have poor hearing. Maybe I've subconsciously learned to block it out like some analogue folks do with record background noise. No one can objectively prove this.
Maybe those who swear it exists have bad digital, overly analytical systems, hearing sensitivities, or something else (insert your personal reason here) or maybe it is a manifestation / preconception in their minds. Like expectation bias. No one can objectively prove this either.
As with most things audio, there is no right or wrong.
Is there something I'm missing?
Is the horse dead yet?
If you hear it, it exists. If you don't, it doesn't. I don't. Others apparently do.
Maybe I have poor hearing. Maybe I've subconsciously learned to block it out like some analogue folks do with record background noise. No one can objectively prove this.
Maybe those who swear it exists have bad digital, overly analytical systems, hearing sensitivities, or something else (insert your personal reason here) or maybe it is a manifestation / preconception in their minds. Like expectation bias. No one can objectively prove this either.
As with most things audio, there is no right or wrong.
Is there something I'm missing?
Is the horse dead yet?
- Status
Similar threads
