Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
SuperQ;626734 Wrote: > It sounds like they're using something like audio diffmaker. It should > be easy to reproduce their results. Exactly. They reach the conclusion that the error signal is proportional to the time rate of change of the signal being tested. Why do you suppose this is? Let's look at the definition of the derivative of a time function f(t) (that is, its instantaneous time rate of change). df(t)/dt = limit as delta_t approaches zero of (f(t+delta_t)-f(t)) / delta_t The idea of their measurement is to introduce the appropriate delay into one of two signals that are nominally almost equal, except for a delay, such that when you subtract them, you get almost zero. But suppose there's a small error in the computed delay. Then you get a time function that looks like this: g(t) = f(t+delta_t)-f(t) which is indeed directly proportional to the derivative of f(t), with a constant of proportionality delta_t. Notice in their presentation, they do not label the vertical axis of the graphs of this difference signal, making the results highly suspect. But as anyone with experience with DiffMaker will attest, if one creates two signals that differ by only a delay (best done digitally), DiffMaker does such a good job of finding the optimum delay before subtraction that the difference signal is too small to be above the noise. This is true even for delays that are not an integer multiple of the sample period. It automatically takes care of that too. So it appears the error signal they're seeing is just from inaccurate computation of the delay between the two signals. They're trying to reinvent the freeware DiffMaker and doing a much poorer job. Whether this is deliberate or not I'll leave up to you. -- andy_c andy_c's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3128 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
darrenyeats;631070 Wrote: > Terry, > As a parting (I'm an optimist) thought... > > It is clear that our ear drums vibrate back and forth and we can > visualise these excursions through time. > > However, we don't perceive these excursions directly. We perceive sound > as composed of frequencies. The more I think about it the more > fascinating it becomes! > Darren I think the really interesting thing about what happens next is that it is a "digital" sampling process that occurs, not a continuous analogue one... -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Terry, As a parting (I'm an optimist) thought... It is clear that our ear drums vibrate back and forth and we can visualise these excursions through time. However, we don't perceive these excursions directly. We perceive sound as composed of frequencies. The more I think about it the more fascinating it becomes! Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB3, SB Touch SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Ha Ha! Thanks, guys, for an entertaining debate. You may not believe this from my replies, but I have learned much from this, and you have given me much to think about. Also, thanks, again for keeping this a civil discussion and refraining from calling me an idiot, even thoough that is clearly the case. Also, my appologies to the OP for running amok all over this thread. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;631028 Wrote: > > adamdea;631015 Wrote: > > > > > > This android... is she decisive when it comes to the menu or will there > > be dithering?> > > Not, I hope, so as to affect your Impulse Response. -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
adamdea;631015 Wrote: > > Phil Leigh;631002 Wrote: > > > > Congratulations, I award you a theoretical prize- [perhaps dinner with > > an android who looks exactly like Angelina Jolie.]> > > > This android... is she decisive when it comes to the menu or will > there be dithering? -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;631002 Wrote: > > adamdea;631001 Wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > I've run out of words and examples too. I concede defeat in the > > theroetical debate but claim absolute victory in the real world :-)> > > Congratulations, I award you a theoretical prize- [perhaps dinner > with an android who looks exactly like Angelina Jolie.] -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
adamdea;631001 Wrote: > > TerryS;630931 Wrote: > > > > I absolutely promise that this is the last word i will utter on the > > subject. > > You keep saying that you don't distinguish between distortion and noise > > and then keep making spurious points the answer to which lies in > > comprehension of the difference between these two concepts and of the > > difference between frequency domain analysis and time domain analysis. > > No the dither will not reduce the total distortion plus noise as you > > would have seen from the various articles linked which analyse this > > out. It will however change the frequency spectrum of the various > > errors meaning that the distortion (in regular human speech) is > > converted to noise (in regular human speech). There is of course no way > > of expressing this proposition in your language and whereof we cannot > > speak thereof we must (for Pity's sake) remain silent. > > > > Last Hint 1 if you have an error which is concentrated into one part of > > the frequency spectrum it may measure at -90db as total harmonic > > distortion plus noise. If you divide up the frequency spectrum into > > different portions and look at the THD plus noise in the part of the > > spectrum this error it occupies, it may (depending on the number of > > portions you divide into) measure at -60db (NB the background noise > > will seem to reduce to say -110 db in every portion but that's just > > becaseue you are now divding in up into smaller slcices, not because > > the whole amount has got smaller) . If by dithering you spread out the > > error you will slightly increase the THD plus noise taken across the > > whole frequency range (=time domain), but drastically reduce it in the > > portion of the spectrum it previously occupied. (the -60db peak is now > > spead out over all the slices, not making each of them very much > > bigger.) > > > > The benefit of dither will not be visible from a purely time domain > > analysis because it is a time domain analysis not a frequency domain > > analysis. That incidentally is (or at least illustrates) the problem > > with time domain analysis. > > So no, obviously, since you define "distorted" in a way which means > > "containing any noise", the output remains "distorted". > > This is simply a property of your own peculiar language.> > > > +1 > I've run out of words and examples too. I concede defeat in the > theroetical debate but claim absolute victory in the real world :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630931 Wrote: > > Phil Leigh;630927 Wrote: > > > > > > > > 60dB doesn't seem like it is so low it would be swamped by noise. I > > would expect 80 dB to be easily obtainable in a studio, which puts the > > noise 20 dB below the signal. I agree it is pretty low, but I don't > > know that I'd say it was inaudible. > > So the distortion components are rendered inaudible at -90dB or more, > > but if the time domain waveform is still distorted, what does that > > mean? Color me confused. > > The time domain waveform is what is moving my speaker voice coil in and > > out with respect to time. So the waveform that moves my speaker is > > distorted, but I can't hear the distortion because the distortion is > > moved out of band (or smeered out in frequency, the story changes > > depending on which version you read)? > > It seems to me that what they are saying, is dithering makes the > > distortion less objectionable. In fact that is exactly what the page > > says: > > > > Quote: > > "Have we smoothed the waves? Not in the slightest. Look at Figure 6, > > where I've zoomed in on the top of two of the resulting cycles. If > > anything, the waves are even bumpier than they were in Figure 4. But > > now the bumps are in different places on each cycle. Similarly, by > > filtering out the 980 hertz fundamental I measured and calculated the > > average noise level to be a mere 30dB below the -60dBFS signal, or > > somewhat higher than the average total harmonic distortion. > > > > Nevertheless, white noise at -93.3dBFS (which is what this was) is > > rarely audible, and certainly less objectionable, than high order > > harmonic distortion. > > > > There was no magic here. Just a mathematical conversion of high levels > > of regular (and irritating) harmonic distortion, which was concentrated > > into some very narrow parts of the frequency spectrum, into a low level > > of far more tolerable white noise which is spread across the whole > > spectrum. More succinctly, we've just pushed down those objectionable > > spikes into the ground which, in turn, has risen a bit. But the ground > > is now flat and far less likely to be tripped over. > > " > > > > But if the waveform is still distorted. The way my speaker voice coil > > moves is not right. I get your point that this is all happening to > > signals that are so small (at 60 dBfs) that you can't hear it. But is > > it undistorted? > > > > > > Terry> > > I absolutely promise that this is the last word i will utter on the > subject. > You keep saying that you don't distinguish between distortion and > noise and then keep making spurious points the answer to which lies > in comprehension of the difference between these two concepts and of > the difference between frequency domain analysis and time domain > analysis. No the dither will not reduce the total distortion plus > noise as you would have seen from the various articles linked which > analyse this out. It will however change the frequency spectrum of > the various errors meaning that the distortion (in regular human > speech) is converted to noise (in regular human speech). There is of > course no way of expressing this proposition in your language and > whereof we cannot speak thereof we must (for Pity's sake) remain > silent. > > Last Hint 1 if you have an error which is concentrated into one part > of the frequency spectrum it may measure at -90db as total harmonic > distortion plus noise. If you divide up the frequency spectrum into > different portions and look at the THD plus noise in the part of the > spectrum this error it occupies, it may (depending on the number of > portions you divide into) measure at -60db (NB the background noise > will seem to reduce to say -110 db in every portion but that's just > becaseue you are now divding in up into smaller slcices, not because > the whole amount has got smaller) . If by dithering you spread out > the error you will slightly increase the THD plus noise taken across > the whole frequency range (=time domain), but drastically reduce it > in the portion of the spectrum it previously occupied. (the -60db > peak is now spead out over all the slices, not making each of them > very much bigger.) > > The benefit of dither will not be visible from a purely time domain > analysis because it is a time domain analysis not a frequency domain > analysis. That incidentally is (or at least illustrates) the problem > with time domain analysis. > So no, obviously, since you define "distorted" in a way which means > "containing any noise", the output remains "distorted". > This is simply a property of your own peculiar language. -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audio
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630931 Wrote: > > But if the waveform is still distorted. The way my speaker voice coil > moves is not right. I get your point that this is all happening to > signals that are so small (at 60 dBfs) that you can't hear it. But is > it undistorted? > > It kind of sounds like the crap they fed us for years about how the TV > signal (NTSC) was good enough even though they removed all kinds of > fine color detail from the signal to get it to fit into the same > bandwidth as the old black and white signal. They did all kinds of > experiments to show the eye couldn't pick up the missing signals. Now > set one of those babies side by side with a decent 1080P HDTV and see > which you prefer. > I sense something; a presence I've not felt since... -- Wombat Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;630927 Wrote: > > TerryS;630922 Wrote: > > > > > > That link clearly shows that the completely artificial (for reasons > > I've explained in my last post) distortion in the computer-generated > > signal at -60dB was changed into noise @~ -90dB. In other words, in > > real life the distortion doesn't get heard because it is rendered into > > inaudible noise. > > > > You are missing the point that you could NEVER see that distorted trace > > on a scope or indeed outside of a computer simulation! > > > > To get back to the OP, the tests (just like ADM difference tests) can > > detect changes that are very low-level . Of real interest is the > > question: could those changes ever be audible when listening to music? > > > > ADM detects 2 sorts of difference; one with a definite residue of music > > in it and one that is pure noise...> > > > > 60dB doesn't seem like it is so low it would be swamped by noise. I > would expect 80 dB to be easily obtainable in a studio, which puts > the noise 20 dB below the signal. I agree it is pretty low, but I > don't know that I'd say it was inaudible. > So the distortion components are rendered inaudible at -90dB or more, > but if the time domain waveform is still distorted, what does that > mean? Color me confused. > The time domain waveform is what is moving my speaker voice coil in > and out with respect to time. So the waveform that moves my speaker > is distorted, but I can't hear the distortion because the distortion > is moved out of band (or smeered out in frequency, the story changes > depending on which version you read)? > It seems to me that what they are saying, is dithering makes the > distortion less objectionable. In fact that is exactly what the page > says: > > Quote: > "Have we smoothed the waves? Not in the slightest. Look at Figure 6, > where I've zoomed in on the top of two of the resulting cycles. If > anything, the waves are even bumpier than they were in Figure 4. But > now the bumps are in different places on each cycle. Similarly, by > filtering out the 980 hertz fundamental I measured and calculated the > average noise level to be a mere 30dB below the -60dBFS signal, or > somewhat higher than the average total harmonic distortion. > > Nevertheless, white noise at -93.3dBFS (which is what this was) is > rarely audible, and certainly less objectionable, than high order > harmonic distortion. > > There was no magic here. Just a mathematical conversion of high > levels of regular (and irritating) harmonic distortion, which was > concentrated into some very narrow parts of the frequency spectrum, > into a low level of far more tolerable white noise which is spread > across the whole spectrum. More succinctly, we've just pushed down > those objectionable spikes into the ground which, in turn, has risen > a bit. But the ground is now flat and far less likely to be tripped > over. > " > > But if the waveform is still distorted. The way my speaker voice > coil moves is not right. I get your point that this is all happening > to signals that are so small (at 60 dBfs) that you can't hear it. But > is it undistorted? > > It kind of sounds like the crap they fed us for years about how the > TV signal (NTSC) was good enough even though they removed all kinds > of fine color detail from the signal to get it to fit into the same > bandwidth as the old black and white signal. They did all kinds of > experiments to show the eye couldn't pick up the missing signals. > Now set one of those babies side by side with a decent 1080P HDTV and > see which you prefer. > > Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630922 Wrote: > > Phil Leigh;630898 Wrote: > > > > > > You guys and reality get over it would ya? > > Actually, what you say makes good sense of course. > > > > But here's a question that actually sort of relates to the original > > post that started this thread... > > The link you just posted: > > http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/dvdaudio/dither.htm > > Says (if I am reading it right), that dithering does not eliminate the > > distortion, but moves it out of band. Another way I have heard it > > described is decorrelating the distortion so it is less objectionable > > or audible. > > But the link seems to clearly say the signal is still distorted. So > > the technique talked about at the start of this thread might pick up on > > that, while a "normal" distortion measurement would not. > > But what about what I hear? Since the time domain presentation of the > > signal still shows it as distorted, can we be sure the ear doesn't hear > > the distortion? It seems strange to me to say I have a signal that is > > clearly distorted when I look at it in the time domain (on an > > oscilloscope), but we say it has no distortion. What's up with that? > > Terry> > > > That link clearly shows that the completely artificial (for reasons > I've explained in my last post) distortion in the computer-generated > signal at -60dB was changed into noise @~ -90dB. In other words, in > real life the distortion doesn't get heard because it is rendered > into inaudible noise. > > You are missing the point that you could NEVER see that distorted > trace on a scope or indeed outside of a computer simulation! > > To get back to the OP, the tests (just like ADM difference tests) can > detect changes that are very low-level . Of real interest is the > question: could those changes ever be audible when listening to > music? > > ADM detects 2 sorts of difference; one with a definite residue of > music in it and one that is pure noise... -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;630898 Wrote: > > TerryS;630894 Wrote: > > > > > > In reality you cannot have an undithered signal because enough noise to > > provide the dither signal is fortunately always present in the input > > signal to an ADC when recording real acoustic music. > > > > There is only one known use-case where this is not true and that is if > > you generate samples using a computer.> > > > You guys and reality get over it would ya? > Actually, what you say makes good sense of course. > > But here's a question that actually sort of relates to the original > post that started this thread... > The link you just posted: > http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/dvdaudio/dither.htm > Says (if I am reading it right), that dithering does not eliminate > the distortion, but moves it out of band. Another way I have heard > it described is decorrelating the distortion so it is less > objectionable or audible. > But the link seems to clearly say the signal is still distorted. So > the technique talked about at the start of this thread might pick up > on that, while a "normal" distortion measurement would not. > But what about what I hear? Since the time domain presentation of > the signal still shows it as distorted, can we be sure the ear > doesn't hear the distortion? It seems strange to me to say I have a > signal that is clearly distorted when I look at it in the time domain > (on an oscilloscope), but we say it has no distortion. What's up with > that? > Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630894 Wrote: > > Phil Leigh;630852 Wrote: > > Are you saying that you find noise an issue with 16-bit playback? > > > > Anyway, when you say "it takes 13 bits to get to 0.01%" > > what exactly do you mean? If you mean without dithering (ie > > theoretical) then yes - but fortunately this isn't what ever happens. > > > > QUOTE] > > > > I am (incorrectly of course) interchanging "distortion" with > > "quantization error". It takes about 13 bits to get the quantization > > error below 0.01% To me, that is "distortion", although I know there > > is a difference in how they are specified and measured. But any > > difference between the desired signal and the actual output is > > distortion (to me). > > So I am saying you would have to have 13 bits left over to resolve the > > signal when it was at -100 dBc. I can't count on dithering to bail me > > out, because I don't want noise present. The noise would have to be 30 > > dB or more below my signal level (at -100dBc) to keep from corrupting my > > nice clean 0.01% distortion signal. As the link you provided points > > out, dithering doesn't eliminate the distortion of the signal, it just > > moves the distortion components out of band. If the signal is still > > distorted, it doesn't work for me. > > Like the quote rgro provided: > > "High Fidelity is not an end in itself but something always to be > > pursued. I doubt if anyone will ever catch up with it." > > That's how I see it. > > > > Actually, CD quality is probably plenty good enough for me, and 24 bit > > /96kHz is probably overkill for me, but that doesn't mean I think we > > are done now and can quit trying to improve. Not until we reach > > "perfect". > > > > Terry> > > > In reality you cannot have an undithered signal because enough noise > to provide the dither signal is fortunately always present in the > input signal to an ADC when recording real acoustic music. > > There is only one known use-case where this is not true and that is > if you generate samples using a computer. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;630852 Wrote: > Are you saying that you find noise an issue with 16-bit playback? > > Anyway, when you say "it takes 13 bits to get to 0.01%" > what exactly do you mean? If you mean without dithering (ie > theoretical) then yes - but fortunately this isn't what ever happens. > > QUOTE] > > I am (incorrectly of course) interchanging "distortion" with > "quantization error". It takes about 13 bits to get the quantization > error below 0.01% To me, that is "distortion", although I know there > is a difference in how they are specified and measured. But any > difference between the desired signal and the actual output is > distortion (to me). > So I am saying you would have to have 13 bits left over to resolve the > signal when it was at -100 dBc. I can't count on dithering to bail me > out, because I don't want noise present. The noise would have to be 30 > dB or more below my signal level (at -100dBc) to keep from corrupting my > nice clean 0.01% distortion signal. As the link you provided points > out, dithering doesn't eliminate the distortion of the signal, it just > moves the distortion components out of band. If the signal is still > distorted, it doesn't work for me. > Like the quote rgro provided: > "High Fidelity is not an end in itself but something always to be > pursued. I doubt if anyone will ever catch up with it." > That's how I see it. > > Actually, CD quality is probably plenty good enough for me, and 24 bit > /96kHz is probably overkill for me, but that doesn't mean I think we > are done now and can quit trying to improve. Not until we reach > "perfect". > > Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630887 Wrote: > Actually, I'm not one of those that thinks that I need all of the > supersonic harmonics to make the music sound right, but who knows? For > me personally, I know albums are capable of content to about 40kHz, and > I don't think we should ever step backward. So I'm good with 96kHz > sampling rate. > > Terry Capable - yes with high distortion and noise! Actually contain? - not so often :-) (excepting CD-4 quad of course...) It's hard cutting an album with 40kHz content from tapes with nothing over 20-25Khz (ie anything recorded before ~1980) :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
adamdea;630850 Wrote: > Actually given your concern about wishing to capture the harmonics of 20 > kHz fundamentals, it seems to me that the 96 is a bit low- just one > harmonic > Surely what you are looking at in the round is 32/384 which I think > some dacs operate at (in theory) Actually, I'm not one of those that thinks that I need all of the supersonic harmonics to make the music sound right, but who knows? For me personally, I know albums are capable of content to about 40kHz, and I don't think we should ever step backward. So I'm good with 96kHz sampling rate. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Just happened across a quote from Emory Cook on the liner notes of a somewhat ancient (early 50's recording) LP I was ripping: "High Fidelity is not an end in itself but something always to be pursued. I doubt if anyone will ever catch up with it." Some things never change! -- rgro Rick System information Main: PS Audio Quintet > Vortexbox > Touch (wired) via spdif coax > Rega DAC > Marantz PM8003 > VA Mozart Grands > REL Acoustics R305. Home Theatre: SBR (Wired) > Pioneer VSX 919 > Energy Take 5 Classic 5.1. SBS 7.5.4 r32298 running on a Vortexbox Appliance, V 1.8. Touch w/Hardware V.5. Touch: FW 7.5.4 r9408. Duet: FW 68. rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630844 Wrote: > Well someone said 21 bits is doable. That's 126 dB dynamic range. So > it is not a noise floor issue. With the noise 26 dB below the lowest > signal, it should be out of the way. > The trouble is, it takes 13 bits to get to 0.01% > And 17 bits to get to 100 dB dynamic range. > So in my fairy tale world, you would need 13 + 17 = 30 bits of > resolution! > Geez, it sucks to be an audiophile > > Terry Are you saying that you find noise an issue with 16-bit playback? Anyway, when you say "it takes 13 bits to get to 0.01%" what exactly do you mean? If you mean without dithering (ie theoretical) then yes - but fortunately this isn't what ever happens. This page explains it nicely. http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/dvdaudio/dither.htm In practice (which is all that matters) noise - or distortion if you prefer - is well below the 0.01%. In their example, the residual noise is ~30dB below a -60dB signal. This is why digital has (pretty much) killed off analogue in professional recording environments - analogue can't get anywhere near this performance. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Actually given your concern about wishing to capture the harmonics of 20 kHz fundamentals, it seems to me that the 96 is a bit low- just one harmonic Surely what you are looking at in the round is 32/384 which I think some dacs operate at (in theory) -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Well someone said 21 bits is doable. That's 126 dB dynamic range. So it is not a noise floor issue. With the noise 26 dB below the lowest signal, it should be out of the way. The trouble is, it takes 13 bits to get to 0.01% And 17 bits to get to 100 dB dynamic range. So in my fairy tale world, you would need 13 + 17 = 30 bits of resolution! Geez, it sucks to be an audiophile Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
cliveb;630749 Wrote: > No, Terry wants 0.01% distortion at -100dB (!) > > 24 bits ain't enough. And of course analogue doesn't have a > snowball-in-hell's chance. I'd hazard a guess that obtaining figures > like that would require everything to be liquid nitrogen cooled :-) Indeed - Johnson Noise is a problem for analogue (including the "A" part of ADC's and DAC's) even if you cryo-suspend everything... :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;630658 Wrote: > So, your "good enough" is near-as-damnit met by Redbook for SNR/dynamic > range and wildly exceeded for distortion (modern DAC's achieve 0.0001% > distortion) No, Terry wants 0.01% distortion at -100dB (!) 24 bits ain't enough. And of course analogue doesn't have a snowball-in-hell's chance. I'd hazard a guess that obtaining figures like that would require everything to be liquid nitrogen cooled :-) -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630654 Wrote: > ...My definition of "good enough" would be about 100 dB of dynamic range > AND 0.01% distortion. At the same time. So 24 bits is about where you > need to be. ... So, your "good enough" is near-as-damnit met by Redbook for SNR/dynamic range and wildly exceeded for distortion (modern DAC's achieve 0.0001% distortion) :-) The benefits of 24-bit (well, 21-bit at best really) RECORDING are: 1) more "wiggle room" when setting levels (but care over gain staging is STILL required to preserve SNR) 2) the ability to perform complex (or even simple) DSP and other mathematical operations with greater accuracy in the final result These benefits (esp #2) are felt even after the 24-bit information is dithered down for redbook playback. Anyway, back to the OP! I'd like to see one of the magazines (don't care which) have the guts to take this approach and develop it into a useful comparative tool. It doesn't have to replace their beloved J-tests - it can be an alternative perspective. The key thing it would provide over their current methods is an easy to understand single number comparison of the accuracy of the electronics in the playback chain. You could just do CD players/streamers/DAC's or include pre-amps and power amps as well (although I think that engineering problem was cracked years ago). It won't work as well with speakers because too many variables and potential error points are introduced IMO. I think this has the potential to put the cat amongst the pigeons. I wonder how dCS, EMM labs, Wadia, Chord et al would stack up against Benchmark, Rega, Arcam, Beresford etc I wonder what the most accurate DAC out there is... -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
darrenyeats;630597 Wrote: > Define "approaches", Terry. > > Unless you are proposing to record the exact movement of each air > molecule during the performance (and then make it happen again) someone > somewhere is going to have to make a judgment on what is audible, what > is good enough. (If you ARE proposing the air molecule thing then it > may be time for me to leave this thread!) > > The fact that all representations, analogue or digital, lose fidelity > as the signal diminishes is IMO just maths, the nature of the animal, > the way it is. All that we can discuss is the DEGREE of fidelity in the > first place and therefore the DEGREE of remaining fidelity required at > lower levels. This is, of course, a matter of debate and research with > listening tests. > > And, I think, that is where the world was before this thread started. > Darren Clearly you make too much sense to be in an "Audiophile" thread. Logic is not allowed :-). My definition of "good enough" would be about 100 dB of dynamic range AND 0.01% distortion. At the same time. So 24 bits is about where you need to be. Bandwidth to at least 40kHz, because I believe that even though you cannot hear a constant 20kHz tone, the absense of higher frequencies might be perceptible. I know that doesn't make sense. But that would be my definition of "good enough". So 24/96 seems "good enough". 16/44 is damned close, and I am willing to admit I could never personally tell the difference (especially on my system). But that is my personal view, which has nothing to do with the point of the post that started this thread, and for that I apologize to the OP. Well, it sort of applies... The paper reference in the first post claims that the system validates that cable supports and mains cables make a measureable and audible effect. If you are willing to accept that, my requirements don't sound like a fairy tale do they? Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
adamdea;630575 Wrote: > Yes I did read it. In fact I specifically referred to the fact that it > was having to digitise the output as the reason why i doubted that the > OP had any relevance to distortion due to quantisation. That was > exactly my point about why that method didn't make much sense for > evaluating the resolution of a system at the limit. See also post 62. I > have repeatedly said that I find it unlikely that you will get much out > of it. You have worked out that it is comparing two digital files? How > much higher do you think the resolution of the adc will be than that of > the 16 bit dithered file you are assessing. Unless the whole chain has a > lot more than 105db of snr I can't possibly see how it could evaluate > the ability of a 16 bit dithered file to contain information below the > noise floor. > > What about the quantisation effects in that adc and the noise and > distortion in the dac and amp? > > I am guessing that the effects we were discussing are almost* certainly > going to be buried in noise and distortion in chain. I assume the DAC used would be 24 bit. That should be sufficient to evaluate a 16 bit source. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630561 Wrote: > I'm not allowed to dream? I'm just stating what the goal should be. > Until it gets there, it is not done. > For now, we should be able to close on a dynamic range and distortion > that approaches the ideal. CD is certainly getting close. Define "approaches", Terry. Unless you are proposing to record the exact movement of each air molecule during the performance (and then make it happen again) someone somewhere is going to have to make a judgment on what is audible, what is good enough. (If you ARE proposing the air molecule thing then it may be time for me to leave this thread!) The fact that all representations, analogue or digital, lose fidelity as the signal diminishes is IMO just maths, the nature of the animal, the way it is. All that we can discuss is the DEGREE of fidelity in the first place and therefore the DEGREE of remaining fidelity required at lower levels. This is, of course, a matter of debate and research with listening tests. And, I think, that is where the world was before this thread started. Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB3, SB Touch SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630486 Wrote: > Did you read the report that was the basis for the start of this thread? > It used a high resolution ADC to "read" the output of the power > amplifier and compare that same output when something in the chain was > changed. In their case it was including cable supports or a better > mains cable. And they claim to be able to measure the differences in > the signal that those changes caused. > I was only suggesting to expand that technique to compare a good analog > signal to the same signal after being converted to Redbook CD. > > Terry Yes I did read it. In fact I specifically referred to the fact that it was having to digitise the output as the reason why i doubted that the OP had any relevance to distortion due to quantisation. That was exactly my point about why that method didn't make much sense for evaluating the resolution of a system at the limit. See also post 62. I have repeatedly said that I find it unlikely that you will get much out of it. You have worked out that it is comparing two digital files? Unless the whole chain has a lot more than 105db of snr I can't possibly see how it could evaluate the ability of a 16 bit dithered file to contain information below the noise floor. What about the quantisation effects in that adc and the noise and distortion in the dac and amp? I am guessing that the effects we were discussing are almost* certainly going to be buried in noise and distortion in chain. -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Soulkeeper;630521 Wrote: > ... takes a concert hall, and a classical orchestra. > > Squeezing the acoustics of the whole room through the limitations of > any stereo system, will have a profound, negative effect on the music. > Trying to get a perfect representation of that, is like expecting a > camera to take a picture so good that you can walk around it and see > the scene from behind. Ain't gonna happen. At least not with today's > technology. > > Read about, for instance, the 'Soundfield microphone' > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundfield_microphone), or 'wave field > synthesis' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_field_synthesis) in > general, and what it can be used for. Consider its limitations, and at > the same time its superiority over the normal music recording > technologies that has generally been used to record the music albums in > our collections. > > Consider what playback equipment would be required to accurately > recreate wave field recordings. > > The difference between the recorded material that we have access to, > and the idealized, perfect acoustical illusion of presence, is so vast > it's hard to fathom. I'm not allowed to dream? I'm just stating what the goal should be. Until it gets there, it is not done. For now, we should be able to close on a dynamic range and distortion that approaches the ideal. CD is certainly getting close. Granted, speakers are not going to support this kind of range (certainly not any speaker I will ever be able to afford). But headphones can blast out enough sound to make your nose bleed. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630515 Wrote: > I don't think it has to be. It seems like more a limitation of our > present "state of the art" that noise is always present. It is in > albums for sure. Tape to lesser degrees depending on the tape speed > and any processing (dolby, dBx, whatever used). For digital, we should > be able to drive it down to the LSB. I think that can be done now, even > for 24 bit systems. > > It seems to me that the goal would be to reproduce the entire range of > music we are interested in without corrupting it in any way. To > reproduce the range of classical music in a good concert hall might > easily approach 100 dB from the loudest to the very quietest sounds > that could be heard. And I see no reason to assume that the quietest > sounds must be distorted in any way. If it is the dying strains of a > violin fadding slowly into silence, it should be clean. A rock concert > might be even worse. And just because the rock instruments might be > intentionally distorted doesn't change anything. My system should > reproduce those distortions exactly. And just because it is impossible > to go to a concert without someone coughing during the quiet parts > doesn't matter either. My system should be able to reproduce it > anyway. Do I want the middle of my TV picture blocked out just because > it is impossible to go to a movie without a tall guy sitting directly in > front of me? > The human ear is amazing in its ability to distinguish sounds. Can it > hear distortion in a signal that is near the lower threshold of > hearing? I wouldn't bet against it. > I'm an audiophile. I won't settle for less than perfection (in > theory). In reality, my wallet will make a different decision for me. > > Terry You don't get anything like 100dB of SNR in any concert hall because of the 30dB-40dB (minimum, if you ar every lucky) of ambient/background noise. Your ears would be literally bleeding at 140dB. In essence this is why 16-bit/96dB is adequate for PLAYBACK. The biggest Dynamic Range we need to reproduce is between the ambient noise floor and the pain threshold - so that would be about 80dB. Even the very best 24-bit ADC's used for audio can only capture 21 bits (128dB SNR) - the rest is always pure electronic/thermal noise. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Soulkeeper;630521 Wrote: > ... takes a concert hall, and a classical orchestra. > > Squeezing the acoustics of the whole room through the limitations of > any stereo system, will have a profound, negative effect on the music. > Trying to get a perfect representation of that, is like expecting a > camera to take a picture so good that you can walk around it and see > the scene from behind. Ain't gonna happen. At least not with today's > technology. > > Read about, for instance, the 'Soundfield microphone' > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundfield_microphone), or 'wave field > synthesis' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_field_synthesis) in > general, and what it can be used for. Consider its limitations, and at > the same time its superiority over the normal music recording > technologies that has generally been used to record the music albums in > our collections. > > Consider what playback equipment would be required to accurately > recreate wave field recordings. > > The difference between the recorded material that we have access to, > and the idealized, perfect acoustical illusion of presence, is so vast > it's hard to fathom. +1 Indeed - and what makes Blumleins old trick so effective that it allows to even imagine depth and height :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630515 Wrote: > To reproduce the range of classical music in a good concert hall ... takes a concert hall, and a classical orchestra. Squeezing the acoustics of the whole room through the limitations of any stereo system, will have a profound, negative effect on the music. Trying to get a perfect representation of that, is like expecting a camera to take a picture so good that you can walk around it and see the scene from behind. Ain't gonna happen. At least not with today's technology. -- Soulkeeper -that is not dead which can eternal lie. and with strange aeons even death may die.- touch + duet + boom + radio / wrt160n/dd-wrt / sbs 7.5.1 or higher/win7(32b)/avira free Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
darrenyeats;630498 Wrote: > Terry, if so perhaps you should reconsider this idea that lower > amplitude signals shouldn't lose fidelity. > > If you look at an analogue signal (music, film whatever) as the sounds > or forms being represented get smaller they will degrade in relative > quality - assuming you amplify the sound or magnify the image enough to > be able to observe this. Again, the same is the case with digital. > > Regardless of which definition of dynamic range is used, logic says to > me this is just part and parcel of any format...? > Darren I don't think it has to be. It seems like more a limitation of our present "state of the art" that noise is always present. It is in albums for sure. Tape to lesser degrees depending on the tape speed and any processing (dolby, dBx, whatever used). For digital, we should be able to drive it down to the LSB. I think that can be done now, even for 24 bit systems. It seems to me that the goal would be to reproduce the entire range of music we are interested in without corrupting it in any way. To reproduce the range of classical music in a good concert hall might easily approach 100 dB from the loudest to the very quietest sounds that could be heard. And I see no reason to assume that the quietest sounds must be distorted in any way. If it is the dying strains of a violin fadding slowly into silence, it should be clean. A rock concert might be even worse. And just because the rock instruments might be intentionally distorted doesn't change anything. My system should reproduce those distortions exactly. And just because it is impossible to go to a concert without someone coughing during the quiet parts doesn't matter either. My system should be able to reproduce it anyway. Do I want the middle of my TV picture blocked out just because it is impossible to go to a movie without a tall guy sitting directly in front of me? The human ear is amazing in its ability to distinguish sounds. can it hear distortion in a signal that is near the lower threshold of hearing? I wouldn't bet against it. I'm an audiophile. I won't settle for less than perfection (in theory). In reality, my wallet will make a different decision for me. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;630491 Wrote: > This method is brilliant for comparing DAC accuracy. I must compare my > M1 Dac against the Touch internal DAC. Obviously, you need to know how accurate your ADC is first! Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB3, SB Touch SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630490 Wrote: > > In my little mind, I am considering distortion to be any difference > between the ideal signal waveform and the one I get in my system. > Harmonic distortion, non-harmonic distortion, or noise. It is all > distortion to me. > Terry, if so perhaps you should reconsider this idea that lower amplitude signals shouldn't lose fidelity. If you look at an analogue signal (music, film whatever) as the sounds or forms being represented get smaller they will degrade in relative quality - assuming you amplify the sound or magnify the image enough to be able to observe this. Again, the same is the case with digital. Regardless of which definition of dynamic range is used, logic says to me this is just part and parcel of any format...? Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB3, SB Touch SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
I reckon if most people did that ADM test (PCM ripped from CD compared to same file played through transport+dac recorded by a very good sound card) they'd get pretty depressed... Actually that reminds me, I must put some time aside for more ADM testing. This method is brilliant for comparing DAC accuracy. I must compare my M1 Dac against the Touch internal DAC. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;630462 Wrote: > Nothing in Sampling Theory can substantiate the idea that distortion > rises with frequency. Distortion is constant with frequency within the > bandwidth limits of the bandwidth limited system required by > Information Theory. This is fundamental to digital audio! I don't claim it is inherent in sampling theory, but when the expected benefits of dithering are considered, it seems to me that having more samples per waveform to average will result in better dithering performance. I think that is consistent with theory. So fewer samples (because the sampled waveform is higher in frequency) must result in worse performane of the dithering. Probably it is insignificant. In my little mind, I am considering distortion to be any difference between the ideal signal waveform and the one I get in my system. Harmonic distortion, non-harmonic distortion, or noise. It is all distortion to me. I agree that the ADM test methodology is pretty much the same as the one discussed in the thread. I'd like to learn a bit more about it. I even thought I might try it myself, although I doubt that I ever will. It is one thing to waste my time when I am supposed to be working my day job debating the merits of this, but quite another to waste my precious listening time at home! But I hope the technique gets more widespread use. I don't think we are getting the whole story with the tools we have been using for the past 50 years or so. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
adamdea;630456 Wrote: > see post 66 Did you read the report that was the basis for the start of this thread? It used a high resolution ADC to "read" the output of the power amplifier and compare that same output when something in the chain was changed. In their case it was including cable supports or a better mains cable. And they claim to be able to measure the differences in the signal that those changes caused. I was only suggesting to expand that technique to compare a good analog signal to the same signal after being converted to Redbook CD. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630451 Wrote: > Phil, > I apologize for how that sounded. Obviously you have a valid viewpoint > and the inclusion of it makes this a more interesting discussion. > Please do not take offense. > Terry Terry - no offense taken - it made me chuckle :-) There are lots of things that don't matter to me... mostly they are things I can't hear like frequencies > 16kHz or signals @ -70dB or lower. I've spent 30 years+ years messing around with this stuff; in studios and slaving over soldering irons, scopes and sig gens etc. I have evangelised the ADM test methodology here and been mercilessly attacked by some people for doing so - and the ADM method is no different to the Nordost et al approach. When I said the "averaging occurs in your brain" I didn't mean when listening, I meant when looking at those ragged/stepped graphs on screen/in books. I should have made that clear. The music (or a sine wave) @ -70dB is not horribly distorted! - there is some noise ~30dB below it... Try generating a -70dB sine wave (any frequency) in Audacity and listening to it... You need to get this whole distortion/noise thing sorted out :-) You keep mentioning distortion or even harmonic distortion, when what we really should be talking about is noise. Nothing in Sampling Theory can substantiate the idea that distortion rises with frequency. Distortion is constant with frequency within the bandwidth limits of the bandwidth limited system required by Information Theory. This is fundamental to digital audio! -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630450 Wrote: > I don't mean to say that sine wave based measurements are not useful for > exactly the reasons you state. I agree with what you say 100%. But in > addition to them, I'd like to see the technique in the first post > become more commonplace. > > Terry see post 66 -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630441 Wrote: > I know it doesn't matter to you, but then I'm wondering how you managed > to wander down into the "Audiophile" forum :-) Terry Phil, I apologize for how that sounded. Obviously you have a valid viewpoint and the inclusion of it makes this a more interesting discussion. Please do not take offense. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
tcutting;630448 Wrote: > Sine waves are used because you can make a meaningful measurement. At a > single frequency you see the amplitude and phase response at that > frequency, as well as any "added" frequency content which is due to > distortion. You can also do two-tone tests to look for intermodulation > distortion. With a broadband "real" signal, it's just too difficult to > isolate what the source of distortion is so it's not really useful. I > imagine there could be metrics for a broadband signal test to verify > the accuracy of the result, but the typical tests are more useful to > understand where the deficiencies lie. I don't mean to say that sine wave based measurements are not useful for exactly the reasons you state. I agree with what you say 100%. But in addition to them, I'd like to see the technique in the first post become more commonplace. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630441 Wrote: > I only meant to say that the proposed technique might show some > interesting results if applied to the CD encoding process that our > present suite of sine wave based tools are not capable of showing. > > Terry Sine waves are used because you can make a meaningful measurement. At a single frequency you see the amplitude and phase response at that frequency, as well as any "added" frequency content which is due to distortion. You can also do two-tone tests to look for intermodulation distortion. With a broadband "real" signal, it's just too difficult to isolate what the source of distortion is so it's not really useful. I imagine there could be metrics for a broadband signal test to verify the accuracy of the result, but the typical tests are more useful to understand where the deficiencies lie. -- tcutting tcutting's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17402 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
That example, I believe, is WHY it works. If you look at the signal AFTER the reconstruction filter, the jagged edges are gone. Of course if you look at the digital output of a 15kHz signal sampled at 40kHz it will look "coarser" then a 100Hz signal sampled at 40kHz. BUT, after the proper reconstruction filter, you've eliminate all the harmonics due to sampling of the 15kHz signal, and are left with ALL the information at 15kHz. -- tcutting tcutting's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17402 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;630361 Wrote: > The "distortion" does not rise with frequency. I think what you are > missing is: > a 20kHz signal never occurs in isolation in real music and even if it > did, > it takes many consecutive samples to convey a "sound" > there is no "averaging", there is a series of instantaneous samples (16 > or 24-bit words) replayed in sequence, in isolation > The averaging occurs only in our brain. It seems to me the distortion has to rise with frequency. At least the part of it affected by dithering. At higher frequencies, there are fewer samples to average together to realize the benefits of dithering. Actually, the averaging occurs in the reconstruction filter, whether it be analog or digital, not my brain. This is mentioned on the page in the link. Look at Figure 8.1 in the link. It is based on a 4 bit sampling, so would be the same as an audio signal about 72 dB below full scale. It is also pretty low in frequency. I count well over 100 samples in the period of the damped signal, so it would have to be about 400 Hz. So try to imagine this same figure with 1/10th the number of samples. That would be the situation for a 4kHz signal. What would the plot in 8.1d look like then? Obviously much more jagged and distorted. You don't have to have a single high frequency signal to get high frequency components in the music. Line up a few lower frequency signals with the same phase, and the leading edge becomes very steep, the same as a single high frequency sine wave would be. Does this transient matter? I know it doesn't matter to you, but then I'm wondering how you managed to wander down into the "Audiophile" forum :-) It matters to me. So does the fact that the music 72 dB below full scale is horribly distorted. Like I say, this is a low frequency signal. Guessing from the plot in 8.1d, it must have several percent distortion. As a general rule, 1% distortion is just visible in a trace like this if I remember right, so this must be much worse than that. So to claim that the dynamic range exceeds this level just doesn't work for me. Here's another thing to think about. Say you have a signal at 12kHz that is pretty large in amplitude. I pick that frequency because it is low enough in frequency to be heard by most everyone, but high enough that the harmonics of it are outside the range of the anti-aliasing filter. So let's say something in the recording process goes horribly wrong and this signal gets badly distorted in a way that produces mainly harmonic distortion. What would a "conventional" distortion analyzer show? Since all of the harmonics are filtered out by the anti-aliasing filters in the CD encoding process, the distortion analyzer would read zero. For those that don't know, distortion analyzers work by using a very sharp notch filter to remove the fundamental (in this case the 12 kHz sine wave) and then measuring the amplitude of whatever is left. In this case, once you remove the fundamental, nothing is left because all of the harmonically related distortion components are removed by the anti-aliasing filter. So the distortion analyzer would read zero. But does this mean the signal really has no distortion? I think that if you examined it in the time domain, you would see it was still distorted. The same could be true for an 8kHz signal if it were distorted in such a way as to cause only odd order harmonics. This would happen if the signal got severely clipped. The first odd harmonic at 24kHz would not make it through the anti-aliasing filter (which is a very good thing). But does that mean the distortion was removed? The technique that started this thread would still show the distortion, while a conventional harmonic distortion analyzer would not. Im not saying that CDs suck. I only meant to say that the proposed technique might show some interesting results if applied to the CD encoding process that our present suite of sine wave based tools are not capable of showing. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630334 Wrote: > Figure 8.1 in the first link you provided is exactly how I picture > dithering working on a music signal. Thanks for posting that. But > obviously, it relies on averaging several readings closely spaced in > time, implying a relatively high sample rate compared to the rate of > change of the music. And still, comparing 8.1d to 8.1a shows a less > than perfect result. So what about a CD? Obviously, with 16 bits > instead of the 4 shown in the figure, the amplitude of the errors is > much smaller. Way too small to visualize. But with music content to > 20 kHz, there are as few as two samples to average. So it gets down to > some statistical analysis of the average frequency content of the music. > How much does the music change during this averaging? Slower music > (say 1kHz or less) gets many samples to average (44), but a 10kHz > signal gets 4 samples to average. > Most of you are saying that this is fine, and it will sound perfect. > Good. I'm not inclined to debate that, but it seems to me that a way > to measure the resultant distortion ( no matter how small it is) is a > good thing. > It seems obvious to me that the distortion must rise at higher > frequencies. But I don't recall ever seeing it spec'd that way for a > CD player. H... > > Terry The "distortion" does not rise with frequency. I think what you are missing is: a 20kHz signal never occurs in isolation in real music and even if it did, it takes many consecutive samples to convey a "sound" there is no "averaging", there is a series of instantaneous samples (16 or 24-bit words) replayed in sequence, in isolation The averaging occurs only in our brain. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
adamdea;630321 Wrote: > > > Anyway the nearest I can find to an example not using a sine wave is > one using a sine wave with decay- which is I think getting close to a > musical note. > http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/iandm/part8/page2.html > however I think his explanation is more complete here > http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/goodresolutions/page1.html Figure 8.1 in the first link you provided is exactly how I picture dithering working on a music signal. Thanks for posting that. But obviously, it relies on averaging several readings closely spaced in time, implying a relatively high sample rate compared to the rate of change of the music. And still, comparing 8.1d to 8.1a shows a less than perfect result. So what about a CD? Obviously, with 16 bits instead of the 4 shown in the figure, the amplitude of the errors is much smaller. Way too small to visualize. But with music content to 20 kHz, there are as few as two samples to average. So it gets down to some statistical analysis of the average frequency content of the music. How much does the music change during this averaging? Slower music (say 1kHz or less) gets many samples to average (44), but a 10kHz signal gets 4 samples to average. Most of you are saying that this is fine, and it will sound perfect. Good. I'm not inclined to debate that, but it seems to me that a way to measure the resultant distortion ( no matter how small it is) is a good thing. It seems obvious to me that the distortion must rise at higher frequencies. But I don't recall ever seeing it spec'd that way for a CD player. H... Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
adamdea;630328 Wrote: > The point has been made that if there is already noise in the signal > equal to at least one lsb then there Is no need to dither. I know, must have been me... I only can´t read all the same reasoning again and again. He wonders if dither has any advantage on music besides these sinuid technical samples. If it was that easy with music there would be plenty of music samples that made it clearly audible. And i don´t talk about some foottappiness. I have the impression in the same breath there comes the intention that someone needs 24bit to get "real resolution" and dither can´t help with 16bit. But it is more the other way around. Why needs anyone 24bit if the dithered 16bit version is not to distinguish alrteady? And i rdepeat myself that all this argueying reminds me on the beginning on digital audio days and therefore our forum here is maybe the false place to ask. At least i see myself confirmed with that suggestion because we are no step further... -- Wombat Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Wombat;630324 Wrote: > There must come to someones mind that it really doesn´t matter to dither > 16bit material because the audible distortion level that hurts real > world listening is already that low that no one should worry about it, > leave alone anyone needs 24bit... > > Dither is only the method to get out the "theoretical" maximum :) The point has been made that if there is already noise in the signal equal to at least one lsb then there Is no need to dither. -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
There must come to someones mind that it really doesn´t matter to dither 16bit material because the audible distortion level that hurts real world listening is already that low that no one should worry about it, leave alone anyone needs 24bit... Dither is only the method to get out the "theoretical" maximum :) -- Wombat Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
There are basically 2 different effects that dither has and you are muddling them up. One is the conversion of distortion to noise and it applies absolutely whatever the signal is. The only reason it doesn't make much sense in terms of one sample is that the difference between noise nad distortion is a a bit doubtful in that context. But it isn't anything to do with whether the signal is a sinewave or any other pattern- it's about whether the error is signal related or not. This is the primary function of dither, and I strongly recommend that you stop worrying about the second. This first function has got nothing to do with retrieving the .27 in 41.27 it about making sure that you don't end up with lots of 41 followed by lots of 42s. The other secondary effect of dither is enabling you to retrieve some signal from below the noise level (and blow the level of the lsb). This is where the question of the .27 comes in. I think that probably requires a degree of repetition or at least pattern in the signal. I think you'll find that at 1/44k second intervals there will be trends and patterns because of the lower frequency components (i don't mean bass, just stuff below say 1 khz) and that the total output will not be anything like random. In any event no you don't retrieve the .27 but you retrieve some information (Getting exactly and reliably .27 would mean extracting an additional 6 bits of information or 36 db of dynamic range which would be truly remarkable. In your erxample getting 41.33 is a good effort, bearing in mind that the sytem is "supposed" to only be able to record to the nearest 1, and it didn't take many samples. Anyway the nearest I can find to an example not using a sine wave is one using a sine wave with decay- which is I think getting close to a musical note. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/iandm/part8/page2.html however I think his explanation is more complete here http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/goodresolutions/page1.html -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
cliveb;630257 Wrote: > I haven't seen anything that suggests this. > > Let me try and tackle this in another way for you. > > Fact: Quantisation error results in distortion of the encoding in the > LSB - End of. > But what are the practical consequences? ... > > Suppose the signal you're recording has enough noise that the only > thing that gets caught up in the quantisation error is the noise > itself. What you end up with is a recording of the wanted signal plus > the noise that was present, but where the noise is distorted. But since > noise is random, that distorted noise is itself just noise. > > Now suppose the signal you're recording has such a low noise floor that > the quantisation error does indeed affect the signal - then you get > distortion in the LSB of the wanted signal. A way of removing this > distortion is to add enough noise prior to A/D conversion so that you > end up with a recording where the only thing that's distorted is the > added noise. That's what dither is - a tradeoff that slightly increases > the noise in return for removing distortion of the signal. > > It doesn't matter whether you're recording steady sine waves or complex > music signals - dither works exactly the same way, by degrading the > signal with sufficient noise that the only thing that gets distorted is > the noise. But as I understand it, dithering is not just a mattery of adding enough noise to cover the distortion in the lsb. It spreads the distortion in the frequency domain so that it is a lower amplitude. Look at the example you pointed to. The noise does not just cover up the distortion components, it lowers them. Every example I have ever seen of this is based on a sine wave input. I don't doubt for a minute that it also works to some degree on a music sample, but to the same extent? If you consider a single sample, what could dithering do for it? Not much in my mind. It is only when multiple samples are averaged together that it starts to make sense. Here is what troubles me... Let's say the perfect level for the sampled value for the music at a partivular instant in time was 41.27 (in a 16 bit system). So when you go to play it back, what is the correct level? The closest you could get would be 41. The 0.27 is "lost". How do you get it back? With dithering, you would taked multiple samples of the 41.27 level with a 0.5 level of random noise added. Now some would be at 41 and some would be at 42, and the average of the samples would be at 41.27 (or close to it). So you play it back with a 41, a 42 and another 41, and then low pass filter in the player averages them back together. In this example, you'd get a level of 41.33 which is a lot closer to the 41.27 that would be the undistorted level. But the only way to get even closer is to do more samples with more averages. In that example, I used three samples of the same instantaneous waveform value. But how many averages can I get on at music sample? At least two, since the sample rate is 44kHz. That doesn't really seem sufficient to get a decent average though. So how many do you get and how many do you need? I've never seen that discussed. The bottom line is you can only output from your DAC either a 41 or a 42 and you must string together enough of them in the right ratio to average out to the right value. You can't output the correct answer (41.27) no matter what magic you might imagine occured during the recording process. The number just doesn't exist in our 16 bit system. The CD only holds integer numbers. The best you can hope to do is average a bunch of samples. How many can you reasonably expect to do on a constantly varying music source? That is my big question with the merits of dithering on music. I'm sure it helps, but I've never read any discusion of how much. Now take a steady sine wave, and you can average to your heart's content. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
I'm pretty sure the only reason we are even discussing a sine wave is because it is always the over-simplified example used when illustrating how digital audio works. As Adam said, digital audio has very little to do with traditional analogue techniques or models and everything to do with Information Theory, which is a purely mathematical model. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630254 Wrote: > I agree that the original setup would not show anything about the > dither. But what I was suggesting is that this same basic technique > could be used to measure the distortion (if any) that is caused by > sampling a music file with the Redbook processing. > You could simply play a high quality analog music file (say the > original master tapes) though the system and capture the output. Then > play a Redbook CD processed version of the same analog recording > through the system and see what the difference is. Of course, like > Phil pointed out, the CD sampling would have to be done in such a way > that the results are meaningful. No compression or anything like that > applied. Only the sampling (including dithering) that would be applied > to a well done CD recording. > The beauty of the system (as I understand it from reading this one > report) is that it measures the peak difference between one waveform > (the reference) and another (the test). It does not rely on averaging > the distortion of a sine wave like all of the other distortion > measurement techniques I am aware of do. > To use a simple analogy, if I was interested in knowing how accurately > my cruise control held the speed of my car, I could drive it along a 10 > mile course with it set to 60mph with lots of hills and see how close > the time at the end of the course was to the perfect 10 minutes. This > is kind of like what using a sine wave based distortion measurement > system does. It averages the error over a certain time. > But if I wanted to really know how accurate my speed was as I went up > and down the hills, I would find a way to measure it constantly along > the course and see how much peak error there was from the desired speed > any instant. That is closer to what the system in the original post > does (I think). > To me that is much more relevant. I don't care that my music is > undistorted "on the average". I want to know the peak difference > between what I should get at the output versus what I do get. > > And again, I am not trying to argue that digital is not as good or > better than analog. Believe me, I would never intentionally walk into > THAT minefield. I'm only saying that a better way to measure > distortion (or at least a different way) could be a good thing. > > Terry AFAIK The total harmonic distortion plus noise is I think a measure of the difference between the (true) signal level at any given time and the value of the output you are measuring. I believe that this is exactly what you want to measure. As for "The beauty of the system (as I understand it from reading this one report) is that it measures the peak difference between one waveform (the reference) and another (the test)." But what would you measure this difference with? Any attempt to do so will simply be a new system of measuring information (ie a recording). I don;t think you can meaningfully do what you want to do because it involves postulating a more accurate measuring and playback system system than you already have. If you think about it how it your suggestion any imnprevment on measuring the difference between the cd recording and the orginal live event ? How would you measure that difference? If you think you can construct a cd player amplifier [and set of speakers?] whose outpute can then be captured by a mic (or whaever) and resampled so as to generate the a file with lower distortion than the orginal 16 bit adc then I suggest that you build that system and make all existing audio equipment redundant. You are IMHO effectively suggesting that we calibrate the standard kilogram using your bathroom scales. I really don't understand whay you keep saying that distortion measurements are something to do with averaging a sine wave. I can only assum,e that you have got this from the analyis of the energy component of noise and distorition at various frequency intervals (?). I had a look at the linked article which Phil posted and various other on the same website and thought they were really very clear. If you look at this http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/iandm/part7/page1.html and various related pages you will see that there is no part of Information theory which demands that the signal is a sine wave. It is true that the sampling theorem involves restating the signal asa the sum of a series of (co)sine waves at each sampling interval, and that the band limitation necessary to sample without aliasing is a limation in the frequncy if those component (co)sine waves (the Fourier transform), but absolutely none of this requires the signal to be a sine wave. Its all about caputring that wiggly signal which changes with time. Its just that when you make a sampling error that affects the various component sine waves which the signal fuanction is broken down into by the Fourier trasnform. You thereofre need to analyse the error in terms of the components at the various frequencies which ma
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630246 Wrote: > The explainations of how dithering works all seem to assume the signal > is repetitive I haven't seen anything that suggests this. Let me try and tackle this in another way for you. Fact: Quantisation error results in distortion of the encoding in the LSB - End of. But what are the practical consequences? ... Suppose the signal you're recording has enough noise that the only thing that gets caught up in the quantisation error is the noise itself. What you end up with is a recording of the wanted signal plus the noise that was present, but where the noise is distorted. But since noise is random, that distorted noise is itself just noise. Now suppose the signal you're recording has such a low noise floor that the quantisation error does indeed affect the signal - then you get distortion in the LSB of the wanted signal. A way of removing this distortion is to add enough noise prior to A/D conversion so that you end up with a recording where the only thing that's distorted is the added noise. That's what dither is - a tradeoff that slightly increases the noise in return for removing distortion of the signal. It doesn't matter whether you're recording steady sine waves or complex music signals - dither works exactly the same way, by degrading the signal with sufficient noise that the only thing that gets distorted is the noise. -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
adamdea;630206 Wrote: > Please forgive me if i have got the wrong end of the stick, but I think > you are barking up the wrong tree. > I agree that the original linked article is interesting but i can't for > myself see what it has to do with or to say about dither. It involved > comparing what is on the data (WAV file) being played with the sound > output of the hifi system (or just cd player analog out) which has to > be re-digitised by the sound card of a pc (see page 2). A comparison > was then made of the signals in the time domain. > I can't really see how this would work for understading the effect of > dither since that would already be present in the recording process > which led to the creation of the WAV file. If you were to compare the > data with and without dither I would have thought you would just be > comparing two WAV files. This would only yield change in amplitude and > would surely have no timing effect since the only difference between > the files would be in the LSB of the sample values . > > Or are you suggesting comparing whether the difference between input > and output of dithered recoding was greater or less than the difference > between the input and output of a non-dithered recording? If so I doubt > you would get any meaningful result even if it was within the > resolution of the system (which is unlikely bearing in mind the > redigitisation stage). Either way you are not comparing anything with > the orginal sounds being recorded in order to see whether dithering > makes the recording more "accurate". In particular this system will not > work for comparing "digital with "analog" since it involves digitising > the output signal. > > I suppose maybe you could take a 24 bit recording which was truncated > to 16 bits played through the audio system then redigitised to a new 24 > bit recording. Then you could do the same with a dithered 16 bit > recoding which you played through the system re-recorded to a 24 bit > file. Then see whether the difference between input and output > undithered was greater than inoput and output undithered. Effectively > (amongst other things) you would be trying to see whether you could > indeed reconstitute any of the information in the 17th bit onwards. I > doubt that this would really be possible because of the noise (and > distortion)in all the intermediary stages > > Sorry if i am being thick but i just don't see what dither (or the > distortion in undithered pcm recording) has to do with the OP. > > The quantisation error which dither deals with with exists whether > there is a repeating wave or a signal whose amplitude varies in a more > complex fashion. It is a feature of each individual sample. > I am somewhat with you on the question of how you retrieve signal beow > the noise level in a non-repeating pattern. However i think that the > point is that the pattern does in fact repeat for quite a few samples > (there being after all 44,000 in one second.) > In any event the simple point applies, whatever the waveform, that > dither makes the quantisation error into a type of noise not a type of > distortion. Now compare that level of noise with the level of noise in > an analog system. Much Much lower. I agree that the original setup would not show anything about the dither. But what I was suggesting is that this same basic technique could be used to measure the distortion (if any) that is caused by sampling a music file with the Redbook processing. You could simply play a high quality analog music file (say the original master tapes) though the system and capture the output. Then play a Redbook CD processed version of the same analog recording through the system and see what the difference is. Of course, like Phil pointed out, the CD sampling would have to be done in such a way that the results are meaningful. No compression or anything like that applied. Only the sampling (including dithering) that would be applied to a well done CD recording. The beauty of the system (as I understand it from reading this one report) is that it measures the peak difference between one waveform (the reference) and another (the test). It does not rely on averaging the distortion of a sine wave like all of the other distortion measurement techniques I am aware of do. To use a simple analogy, if I was interested in knowing how accurately my cruise control held the speed of my car, I could drive it along a 10 mile course with it set to 60mph with lots of hills and see how close the time at the end of the course was to the perfect 10 minutes. This is kind of like what using a sine wave based distortion measurement system does. It averages the error over a certain time. But if I wanted to really know how accurate my speed was as I went up and down the hills, I would find a way to measure it constantly along the course and see how much peak error there was from the desired speed any instant. That is closer to what the system in the original
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;630140 Wrote: > The concept of dither is totally independent of the underlying waveform. > In sinple terms it is injecting a random element into the LSB. What is > in the other bits makes no difference. > > Of course we do listen to sine waves - everything we hear is a very > large number of sine waves occurring simultaneously :-) > > It's just maths; the "maths" don't know the difference between pure > sine waves and anything else. > > Also, some noise is ALWAYS present in real recording, so dither does > not need to be added, the inherent noise acts as the dither signal. If > you are looking at computer-generated sine waves, artificial dither > needs to be added. > > Finally, what is shown in Figure 3 (blue trace) is quantization noise > peaking at -110dB. (for a -70dB signal). > > So, the spurious noise is 40dB BELOW -70dB!!! Yep, that's what I said. 40 dB below the -70dBFS signal. That's 1% distortion without dither. Of course music is a kinda like a collection of sine waves. But the big difference is that they are not steady sine waves like we use in our distortion measurements. They are constantly changing amplitude, frequency and phase. The explainations of how dithering works all seem to assume the signal is repetitive so that multiple samples of the waveform with different levels of randomm noise are averaged together so that the average becomes more accurate than the individual samples. That is easy enough for me to understand, but what happens when the signal changes significantly between samples. Again, I am not ready to state that dithering doesn't work on music. Just that I've never seen it discussed or analyzed. It is certainly not obvious to me how injecting random noise on top of a signal you can only measure once reduces the quatization error. I'm sure the fact that the music does not change instantaneously is an important consideration, and so I would be willing to bet that dithering DOES reduce the quantization error on music samples, but how much? I am only saying that the technique in the post that started this thread might be able to measure it. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;630121 Wrote: > This finally gets us back to the point I was try to get to. Like I was > trying to say, Redbook CD has relatively high levels of distortion as > the signal level drops if dithering is not used. The example shows > about -40dB (1%) harmonic distortion for a -70 dBfs signal. But with > dithering applied during the recording process, all is well. But like > I said at the start of this thread, every example or explanation I have > seen (including this one) uses a sine wave input to demonstrate the > merits of dithering. But I don't listen to sine waves much. I'm not > saying that I don't believe that dithering also works on music > waveforms, but I have never seen a discussion of how much. It is easy > for me to understand how dithering works on a repetitive sine wave > signal, but it is a. Lot different situation with a random signal like > music. > I was just trying to say that the technique in the paper that was the > original topic of this thread gives an excellent opportunity to see > just how well dithering works in a real world music sample. Rather > than measuring the average distortion of a signal to which random noise > is added, the technique measures the peak distortion at each sample. > This to me seems like a good idea. The bottom line is that all of the > "traditional" methods of measuring distortion can not be applied to > anything but sine waves. We have no way to measure how much music is > distorted ( or not). > I'm not claiming that I expect to find some earth shattering result, > like that music is horribly distorted even though sine wave distortion > measures fine, but I like the idea of looking at it anyway. > I've been looking (and continue to look) for a good description of how > dithering works on non-sinusoidal waveforms. I'm sure it involves > statistical analysis that I probably wouldn't understand anyway, but > I'd like to see it. Lacking that, techniques like the one that was the > start of this thread might shed some light. > > Terry Please forgive me if i have got the wrong end of the stick, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I agree that the original linked article is interesting but i can't for myself see what it has to do with or to say about dither. It involved comparing what is on the data (WAV file) being played with the sound output of the hifi system (or just cd player analog out) which has to be re-digitised by the sound card of a pc (see page 2). A comparison was then made of the signals in the time domain. I can't really see how this would work for understading the effect of dither since that would already be present in the recording process which led to the creation of the WAV file. If you were to compare the data with and without dither I would have thought you would just be comparing two WAV files. This would only yield change in amplitude and would surely have no timing effect since the only difference between the files would be in the LSB of the sample values . Or are you suggesting comparing whether the difference between input and output of dithered recoding was greater or less than the difference between the input and output of a non-dithered recording? If so I doubt you would get any meaningful result even if it was within the resolution of the system (which is unlikely bearing in mind the redigitisation stage). Either way you are not comparing anything with the orginal sounds being recorded in order to see whether dithering makes the recording more "accurate". In particular this system will not work for comparing "digital with "analog" since it involves digitising the output signal. I suppose maybe you could take a 24 bit recording which was truncated to 16 bits played through the audio system then redigitised to a new 24 bit recording. Then you could do the same with a dithered 16 bit recoding which you played through the system re-recorded to a 24 bit file. Then see whether the difference between input and output undithered was greater than inoput and output undithered. Effectively (amongst other things) you would be trying to see whether you could indeed reconstitute any of the information in the 17th bit onwards. I doubt that this would really be possible because of the noise (and distortion)in all the intermediary stages Sorry if i am being thick but i just don't see what dither (or the distortion in undithered pcm recording) has to do with the OP. The quantisation error which dither deals with with exists whether there is a repeating wave or a signal whose amplitude varies in a more complex fashion. It is a feature of each individual sample. I am somewhat with you on the question of how you retrieve signal beow the noise level in a non-repeating pattern. However i think that the point is that the pattern does in fact repeat for quite a few samples (there being after all 44,000 in one second.) In any event the simple point applies, whatever the waveform, that dither makes the quantisa
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
The concept of dither is totally independent of the underlying waveform. In sinple terms it is injecting a random element into the LSB. What is in the other bits makes no difference. Of course we do listen to sine waves - everything we hear is a very large number of sine waves occurring simultaneously :-) It's just maths; the "maths" don't know the difference between pure sine waves and anything else. Also, some noise is ALWAYS present in real recording, so dither does not need to be added, the inherent noise acts as the dither signal. If you are looking at computer-generated sine waves, artificial dither needs to be added. Finally, what is shown in Figure 3 (blue trace) is quantization noise peaking at -110dB. (for a -70dB signal). So, the spurious noise is 40dB BELOW -70dB!!! -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;629629 Wrote: > A definitive answer to your incorrect assertion regarding dynamic > range/distortion can be found here: > > http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/goodresolutions/page1.html > > Please read all 4 pages. > regards > Phil This finally gets us back to the point I was try to get to. Like I was trying to say, Redbook CD has relatively high levels of distortion as the signal level drops if dithering is not used. The example shows about -40dB (1%) harmonic distortion for a -70 dBfs signal. But with dithering applied during the recording process, all is well. But like I said at the start of this thread, every example or explanation I have seen (including this one) uses a sine wave input to demonstrate the merits of dithering. But I don't listen to sine waves much. I'm not saying that I don't believe that dithering also works on music waveforms, but I have never seen a discussion of how much. It is easy for me to understand how dithering works on a repetitive sine wave signal, but it is a. Lot different situation with a random signal like music. I was just trying to say that the technique in the paper that was the original topic of this thread gives an excellent opportunity to see just how well dithering works in a real world music sample. Rather than measuring the average distortion of a signal to which random noise is added, the technique measures the peak distortion at each sample. This to me seems like a good idea. The bottom line is that all of the "traditional" methods of measuring distortion can not be applied to anything but sine waves. We have no way to measure how much music is distorted ( or not). I'm not claiming that I expect to find some earth shattering result, like that music is horribly distorted even though sine wave distortion measures fine, but I like the idea of looking at it anyway. I've been looking (and continue to look) for a good description of how dithering works on non-sinusoidal waveforms. I'm sure it involves statistical analysis that I probably wouldn't understand anyway, but I'd like to see it. Lacking that, techniques like the one that was the start of this thread might shed some light. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
adamdea;629706 Wrote: > That is definitely he best joke about low level DAC linearity I have > ever heard. I'm here all week... :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;629679 Wrote: > yes you could say it's only a bit wrong... :-) That is definitely he best joke about low level DAC linearity I have ever heard. -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Soulkeeper;629662 Wrote: > This seems self contradicting to me. Getting better with "issues > specific to digital" cannot possibly have an effect on "certain > characteristics of analog reproduction", can it? > > BTW: I would very much like to get my hands on a SBS plugin can do > on-the-fly "vinylyzing" of my FLACS. And while we're at it, a > "tapeifier" plugin, too. I can't any reason for this being impossible. > It would be a bit like the Hipstamatic stuff for iPhone cameras, only > infinitely better, and auditive. ;) VST plugins that do this have been around for years. It's a pity SBS doesn't support VST. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
adamdea;629673 Wrote: > ...and even when it is wrong, it is sometimes only very slightly wrong. yes you could say it's only a bit wrong... :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;629655 Wrote: > yes that's what I meant by the error/noise being "in the lowest bit" The > lowest bit is not always wrong! ...and even when it is wrong, it is sometimes only very slightly wrong. -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
earwaxer9;629570 Wrote: > I am fully convinced that the reason we like "analog" is due to certain > characteristics of analog reproduction. earwaxer9;629570 Wrote: > I think the crux of the digital issues reside in jitter and other > isssues specific to digital. The better we get with these issues, the > preferences of analog sound will disappear. This seems self contradicting to me. Getting better with "issues specific to digital" cannot possibly have an effect on "certain characteristics of analog reproduction", can it? BTW: I would very much like to get my hands on a SBS plugin can do on-the-fly "vinylyzing" of my FLACS. And while we're at it, a "tapeifier" plugin, too. I can't any reason for this being impossible. It would be a bit like the Hipstamatic stuff for iPhone cameras, only infinitely better, and auditive. ;) -- Soulkeeper -that is not dead which can eternal lie. and with strange aeons even death may die.- touch + duet + boom + radio / wrt160n/dd-wrt / sbs 7.5.1 or higher/win7(32b)/avira free Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
adamdea;629648 Wrote: > and surely it's not expressed as a ratio of the number of bits which > are dodgy to total bits (1 bit =.5, 2 bits equal .25), but as a ratio of > the quantisation error to the value expressed by the bits (2 bits =1/6 > max). Acutally the average (ie RMS) error is less than 0.5 bits I > reckon yes that's what I meant by the error/noise being "in the lowest bit" The lowest bit is not always wrong! -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
and surely it's not expressed as a percentage of the number of bits which are dodgy (1 bit =.5, 2 bits equal .25), but as a percentage of the value expressed by those bits (2 bits =1/6). -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
adamdea;629632 Wrote: > As to the second point do read the Pohlmann book as it explains it very > well. The point is the quantisation error is noise if uncorrelated to > signal or distortion if correlated (this is essentially a definitional > proposition; but it coincides with a pyschoacoustical point that random > eror is less annoying than signal related error). At low levels ADC's > quantisation error will for engineering reasons become correlated. > Hence it becomes distortion. A dithered sigbnal not only decorrelates > the error but it makes it possible to decode signal BELOW the lsb for > reasons which are very tricky to understand (but if you imagine a > repetitive sigbnal plus random noise you can see that by stistical > inference you can decode the signal below the noise.) Believe it or not > dither was discovered (not invented) as it naturally occured in WWII > airplane navigation instruments- they worked better (ie more > accurately)in the planes (where there was vibration) than in the lab- > why? because the random vibration decorrelated (and maybe reduced?)the > errors caused by stickiness at the lowest level of reading. > AS for your maths I can;t find a published table to check my reasoning > but I still can't see how distortion is 25% with two bits. The maximum > signal is 3 (11) and the quantisation error is surely still 0.5 at > most.(Help there must be someone clever here who can confirm one way of > the other) That's correct. The quantisation error (noise) is alawys in the lowest 0.5 bit. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;629503 Wrote: > Without dithering, the situation is easy to understand. For every bit > below full scale, the distortion doubles. And each bit is worth 6dB of > dynamic range. So if you plot the distortion (due to quantization > error) versus the number of bits below full scale, it reaches about 1% > when the level is 54 dB below full scale and doubles for every > additional bit below that. So at 60 dB below full scale, the > distortion would double (1.56% actually). That is the situation if > dithering is not applied. > > What I don't know, is how much dithering during the recording process > or playback changes that. I've just never seen a good description > anywhere . > As to the second point do read the Pohlmann book as it explains it very well. The point is the quantisation error is noise if uncorrelated to signal or distortion if correlated (this is essentially a definitional proposition; but it coincides with a pyschoacoustical point that random eror is less annoying than signal related error). At low levels ADC's quantisation error will for engineering reasons become correlated. Hence it becomes distortion. A dithered sigbnal not only decorrelates the error but it makes it possible to decode signal BELOW the lsb for reasons which are very tricky to understand (but if you imagine a repetitive sigbnal plus random noise you can see that by stistical inference you can decode the signal below the noise.) Believe it or not dither was discovered (not invented) as it naturally occured in WWII airplane navigation instruments- they worked better (ie more accurately)in the planes (where there was vibration) than in the lab- why? because the random vibration decorrelated (and maybe reduced?)the errors caused by stickiness at the lowest level of reading. AS for your maths I can;t find a published table to check my reasoning but I still can't see how distortion is 25% with two bits. The maximum signal is 3 (11) and the quantisation error is surely still 0.5 at most.(Help there must be someone clever here who can confirm one way of the other) -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;629505 Wrote: > The point is the equipment should be able to reproduce the signal at 54 > dB below full scale(or 96 dB below full scale if you claim that is the > dynamic range spec). It does not even mean the full scale signal has > to be present at the same time. That is what dynamic range is. The > difference between the largest signal the equipment can reproduce vs. > the smallest. My point is I should also be able to reproduce the > signal with a reasonable amount of distortion at 96 dB below full scale > if you claim the dynamic range is 96 dB. 50% distorted signals don't > count (in my opinion). Nor do 25% distorted signals. Not even 12.5% > distorted signals. I would (arbitrarily) draw the line at 1% > distortion. That leaves you with 54 dB dynamic range. > Of couse the situation changes when dithering is considered, I just > don't know how much. > If you say a dynamic range of 96 dB (or even 54 dB) is not "necessary", > that is entering the area of opinion. I want better. Even if I can't > "hear it". > > Terry A definitive answer to your incorrect assertion regarding dynamic range/distortion can be found here: http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/goodresolutions/page1.html Please read all 4 pages. regards Phil -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
darrenyeats;629397 Wrote: > u > Exactly. > > Of course I have experienced analogue sounding better than digital in a > particular system. You may have read my recent post about listening to > reel to reel at a show and all of us preferring that to the digital. > > Afterwards we found the reel to reel was a recording of the digital > output. > > Sometimes the reasons for what we hear are not what we think... > Darren I am fully convinced that the reason we like "analog" is due to certain characteristics of analog reproduction. Good example above. There is no reason why the above digital recording could not be reproduced, from the original digital recording, and sound "as good" or not better than the reel to reel reproduction. I think the crux of the digital issues reside in jitter and other isssues specific to digital. The better we get with these issues, the preferences of analog sound will disappear. -- earwaxer9 System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse, modified Maggie MMG's, Transporter, HSU sub 12, MSB DAC to 500 watt sub slave amp, JPS labs power cords, Silver audio interconnect, Audioquest Granite speaker cable. earwaxer9's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=39527 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;629505 Wrote: > My point is I should also be able to reproduce the signal with a > reasonable amount of distortion at 96 dB below full scale if you claim > the dynamic range is 96 dB. Using this logic, those tape machines need to produce a -70db signal with a reasonable amount of distortion (rather less than 1%) or otherwise we wouldn't rate them at 70db dynamic range. But they produce noise at -70db! Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB3, SB Touch SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;629503 Wrote: > If you are saying that distortion exceeding 1% at 54 dB below full scale > is acceptable, I have to say that is your opinion. It doesn't sound > like it is much better than a good tape deck could have achieved > instead of the quantum leap in performance we were told CDs would > provide. I had a high quality open reel deck (Tandberg 9241X) for over 30 years. (Sold it last fall after I finished converting my open reel collection to digital.) I can guarantee you that a recorded signal at -54 dB included a significant amount of background noise that clearly diminished the sound quality. The same signal recorded to a CD quality digital file will have the same low level signal clearly audible against a quiet background. If you were to compare the open reel tape and the 16/44.1K digital file, there is absolutely no question as to which would sound more like the live mike feed. There are those who argue that tape hiss is somehow better than silence, but having actually done the comparison myself, a -54 dB signal recorded to digital is a quantum leap better than one on analog tape. Sure, in some cases, a high rez digital file is even audibly better, but it sure isn't the leap forward in background quiet from CD that CD was over analog tape. -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;629503 Wrote: > I wish we could eliminate the "what you can hear" issue from the > discussion. What you can hear, what I can hear, what a person that has > dedicated huge amounts of time and money perfecting his equipment and > hearing acuity can hear... who is to say? > I was just trying to understand the effect of dithering on the > distortion levels. Without dithering, the situation is easy to > understand. For every bit below full scale, the distortion doubles. > And each bit is worth 6dB of dynamic range. So if you plot the > distortion (due to quantization error) versus the number of bits below > full scale, it reaches about 1% when the level is 54 dB below full > scale and doubles for every additional bit below that. So at 60 dB > below full scale, the distortion would double (1.56% actually). That > is the situation if dithering is not applied. > What I don't know, is how much dithering during the recording process > or playback changes that. I've just never seen a good description > anywhere . > If you are saying that distortion exceeding 1% at 54 dB below full > scale is acceptable, I have to say that is your opinion. It doesn't > sound like it is much better than a good tape deck could have achieved > instead of the quantum leap in performance we were told CDs would > provide. > Again, I am looking at it from the "Audiophile" perspective, not some > "what's good enough for me" perspective. > 96 dB of dynamic range sounds great. But if the truth is it only gives > 96dB of dynamic range if you are willing to accept unbounded levels of > distortion, I gotta respectfully disagree. > > Terry 1) This is a discussion about audio. The ONLY thing that matters is what can be heard and what can't! In the 70's, Sansui made an amp with (essentially) ZERO % distortion - it didn't sound great. 2) 16-bit digital has 96dB of dynamic range / SNR. Analogue has (at very very best) <70dB. The net result is that digital has a seemingly silent background and analogue doesn't (the analogue noise floor at source is much higher). This means that it is much easier to hear certain quiet sounds via digital that are simply buried in the noise floor of analogue. To put it another way, the "distortion" at -54dB in analogue is MUCH greater than 1%! 3) Dither is simply not relevant to the core of this discussion. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;629487 Wrote: > As to your -54dB signal = 1% distortion assertion... you will never hear > (because it will be too quiet) a -54dB sound that is happening > simultaneously with anything else - it will be completely masked. > > > Yes if you reduced the ENTIRE track to -54dB you will get that level of > distortion audible if you turn up the volume very high on your amp so > you can actually hear something. Bear in mind that tape hiss from a > 30ips analogue reel-reel tape deck in perfect order was circa -60dB... The point is the equipment should be able to reproduce the signal at 54 dB below full scale(or 96 dB below full scale if you claim that is the dynamic range spec). It does not even mean the full scale signal has to be present at the same time. That is what dynamic range is. The difference between the largest signal the equipment can reproduce vs. the smallest. My point is I should also be able to reproduce the signal with a reasonable amount of distortion at 96 dB below full scale if you claim the dynamic range is 96 dB. 50% distorted signals don't count (in my opinion). Nor do 25% distorted signals. Not even 12.5% distorted signals. I would (arbitrarily) draw the line at 1% distortion. That leaves you with 54 dB dynamic range. Of couse the situation changes when dithering is considered, I just don't know how much. If you say a dynamic range of 96 dB (or even 54 dB) is not "necessary", that is entering the area of opinion. I want better. Even if I can't "hear it". Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;629487 Wrote: > Firstly we need to clear up the issue of dither. In audio, dither is > added when REDUCING bit-depth - e.g. from 24 to 16 bit. It is done here > to reduce the effects of quantization distortion in the 0.5 LSB (of the > 16) so that the 8 LSB's of the 24 are not brutally truncated, but > actually rendered to something slightly less offensive and more > musically meaningful. > > As to your -54dB signal = 1% distortion assertion... you will never > hear (because it will be too quiet) a -54dB sound that is happening > simultaneously with anything else - it will be completely masked. > > In fact I can point you at a track that has a Souza marching band > buried at -35dB under a Bach choral solo - it is impossible to hear the > Souza. > > > Yes if you reduced the ENTIRE track to -54dB you will get that level of > distortion audible if you turn up the volume very high on your amp so > you can actually hear something. Bear in mind that tape hiss from a > 30ips analogue reel-reel tape deck in perfect order was circa -60dB... I wish we could eliminate the "what you can hear" issue from the discussion. What you can hear, what I can hear, what a person that has dedicated huge amounts of time and money perfecting his equipment and hearing acuity can hear... who is to say? I was just trying to understand the effect of dithering on the distortion levels. Without dithering, the situation is easy to understand. For every bit below full scale, the distortion doubles. And each bit is worth 6dB of dynamic range. So if you plot the distortion (due to quantization error) versus the number of bits below full scale, it reaches about 1% when the level is 54 dB below full scale and doubles for every additional bit below that. So at 60 dB below full scale, the distortion would double (1.56% actually). That is the situation if dithering is not applied. What I don't know, is how much dithering during the recording process or playback changes that. I've just never seen a good description anywhere . If you are saying that distortion exceeding 1% at 54 dB below full scale is acceptable, I have to say that is your opinion. It doesn't sound like it is much better than a good tape deck could have achieved instead of the quantum leap in performance we were told CDs would provide. Again, I am looking at it from the "Audiophile" perspective, not some "what's good enough for me" perspective. 96 dB of dynamic range sounds great. But if the truth is it only gives 96dB of dynamic range if you are willing to accept unbounded levels of distortion, I gotta respectfully disagree. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
I have that book and am not sure whether it answers the question directly. But it is worth remembering that the sample value represents the total of all the sounds waves at any one time. I don't think you often have a -54 db sound out of (otherwise) silent background. I have seen graphs of the amplitude level of music on cds (even well recorded symphonic ones) showing the level going down to -60 at worst for short instants. I think the point is that quantisation noise can be seen as either noise or distortion and dithering makes it the latter. As to the % distortion- isn't the distortion at 1 bit 50% ?(it will not be completely wrong - half an LSB due to rounding). [If you added dither you create a noisy signal from which some information can be gleaned (if you look over a likng time there will be a deviation from randomness.] At 2 bits I would have thought distortion was 16.7% (half divided by 3). I would have guessed that it became 1% a bit below 6 significant digits (highest level 63 ie 1/126 distortion(?))That would be more like 60 db down at 16 bit. However I think this can be improved by noise shaping. I -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;629480 Wrote: > But is it true that the distortion of a signal only 54 dB below full > scale will have about 1% distortion due to quantization error, or does > dithering improve this significantly? How much does dithering improve > the situation? > > I've never seen a good discussion of this. Does the book Phil > recommended above have some good information on this? If so, I'll > order it and give it a good read. > > BTW, thanks to everyone for taking the time to enlighten me without > feeling the need to question my ancestory as so often happens in these > kinds of discussions. > > Terry Firstly we need to clear up the issue of dither. In audio, dither is added when REDUCING bit-depth - e.g. from 24 to 16 bit. It is done here to reduce the effects of quantization distortion in the 0.5 LSB (of the 16) so that the 8 LSB's of the 24 are not brutally truncated, but actually rendered to something slightly less offensive and more musically meaningful. As to your -54dB signal = 1% distortion assertion... you will never hear (because it will be too quiet) a -54dB sound that is happening simultaneously with anything else - it will be completely masked. In fact I can point you at a track that has a Souza marching band buried at -35dB under a Bach choral solo - it is impossible to hear the Souza. Yes if you reduced the ENTIRE track to -54dB you will get that level of distortion audible if you turn up the volume very high on your amp so you can actually hear something. Bear in mind that tape hiss from a 30ips analogue reel-reel tape deck in perfect order was circa -60dB... -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
But is it true that the distortion of a signal only 54 dB below full scale will have about 1% distortion due to quantization error, or does dithering improve this significantly? How much does dithering improve the situation? I've never seen a good discussion of this. Does the book Phil recommended above have some good information on this? If so, I'll order it and give it a good read. BTW, thanks to everyone for taking the time to enlighten me without feeling the need to question my ancestory as so often happens in these kinds of discussions. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
cliveb;629393 Wrote:
> ...
>
> { a lot of very good stuff from Clive }
>
> ...And to return to your original premise that 16 bit PCM isn't good
> enough, I humbly submit that no analogue system (with the possible
> exception of Dolby SR) gets anywhere close to the 96dB dynamic range of
> 16 bit PCM.
dBX got quite close - but had "issues". I agree, the dynamic range/SNR
capabilities of even 16-bit digital when USED PROPERLY really do IN
PRACTICE outstrip anything analogue has ever had to offer.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103
- full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5),
Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber
8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables
Stax4070+SRM7/II phones
Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything.
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
cliveb;629393 Wrote: > In an analogue system, where the signal level is right down near the > noise floor it is swamped by that noise (THD+N will be up around that > 50% level). This is entirely analogous to the 1-bit digital signal with > 50% distortion. And you are correct - neither can be listened to as > music. Good point. Most of the old analog recordings that have now been elevated to sainthood by some were done on studio open reel recorders. They had a S/N ratio in the 60 dB range. With Dolby, later recorders maybe went to 70 dB. If you have some very faint sound 55 or 60 dB down in the recording, it is still drowning in a sea of hiss. Without debating whether the S/N ratio for a CD is effectively 96 dB or some other number, I have many very good CD recordings where very faint sounds are clearly heard with no apparent distortion against a very quiet background. Most of the complaints I heard about CD recordings are not the fault of the recording medium, but rather intentional choices by the artist, engineer, producer or others who made the recording. -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
ucliveb;629393 Wrote: > > And to return to your original premise that 16 bit PCM isn't good > enough, I humbly submit that no analogue system (with the possible > exception of Dolby SR) gets anywhere close to the 96dB dynamic range of > 16 bit PCM. Exactly. Of course I have experienced analogue sounding better than digital in a particular system. You may have read my recent post about listening to reel to reel at a show and all of us preferring that to the digital. Afterwards we found the reel to reel was a recording of the digital output. Sometimes the reasons for what we hear are not what we think... Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB3, SB Touch SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;629297 Wrote: > In the analog realm, dynamic range is the difference between the loudest > signal that can be reproduced and the noise floor. That makes sense (to > me), but there is no good correlation in the digital realm. Actually the correlation is very good indeed. Digital systems have a noise floor, just like analogue ones. In a digital system the noise floor is determined by the bit depth, whereas in an analogue one it's determined by the physical characteristics of the recording medium. But the outcome is the same. TerryS;629297 Wrote: > But if you consider the smallest signal to be 1 bit, then the distortion > would be 50%. That isn't music. In an analogue system, where the signal level is right down near the noise floor it is swamped by that noise (THD+N will be up around that 50% level). This is entirely analogous to the 1-bit digital signal with 50% distortion. And you are correct - neither can be listened to as music. If you happen to add dither to the digital system, the 50% distortion is *entirely replaced* by pure noise, so the end result is *exactly* like an analogue system with the same dynamic range. And to return to your original premise that 16 bit PCM isn't good enough, I humbly submit that no analogue system (with the possible exception of Dolby SR) gets anywhere close to the 96dB dynamic range of 16 bit PCM. -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;629340 Wrote: > I agree - I started to write a long reply to Terry's post and gave up. > > It's all explained in here: > > > http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Digital-Audio-Ken-Pohlmann/dp/0071348190 Thanks, Phil. I will order this book and give it a read if you are recommending it as a good one. I'm pretty familiar with ADC/DAC design, having done several such designs myself, but not in the audio field, so maybe there is something I am missing. I have also read a great deal (on the web) about the subject and I haven't seen anything that would make me believe that CDs are capable of anywhere near 96dB of dynamic range if you limit the definition of dynamic range to only include signal levels with some reasonable amount of distortion (quantization error). Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Wombat;629329 Wrote: > Again you calculate some things up and down that are simply limited by > the way linear PCM works. When you have noise in bit 17-24 these 24bit > gain you nothing. Bit 16 will be as distorted or accurate as it will be > without bit 17-24 you even can truncate here. For music that is clean > below bit 16 dithering may help. > Still there are more factors why you can´t hear a very silent tone in > normal music or again if it is that low you´d have to crank it up > insane so that normal listening with the louder parts of the music > isn´t possible. > > I think we are going in circles here and i better stop because my math > isn´t good enough to explain it to you. Your way of argueing i remember > was pretty common in the beginning of digital audio but has no meaning > for real world listening. > > You may come to Hydrogenaudio.org and ask the same stuff. I bet someone > can help you with the math you try here. I agree - I started to write a long reply to Terry's post and gave up. It's all explained in here: http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Digital-Audio-Ken-Pohlmann/dp/0071348190 -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Again you calculate some things up and down that are simply limited by the way linear PCM works. When you have noise in bit 17-24 these 24bit gain you nothing. Bit 16 will be as distorted or accurate as it will be without bit 17-24 you even can truncate here. For music that is clean below bit 16 dithering may help. Still there are more factors why you can´t hear a very silent tone in normal music or again if it is that low you´d have to crank it up insane so that normal listening with the louder parts of the music isn´t possible. I think we are going in circles here and i better stop because my math isn´t good enough to explain it to you. Your way of argueing i remember was pretty common in the beginning of digital audio but has no meaning for real world listening. You may come to Hydrogenaudio.org and ask the same stuff. I bet someone can help you with the math you try here. -- Wombat Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
My issue with 16 bits is not the dynamic range, which is often quoted at being 96 dB because this is the value you get when you raise 2 to the 16th power (and then convert to dB by multiplying the log of it by 20). But what does that mean? That there is 96 dB difference between the maximum signal that can be reproduced, and no signal whatsoever? It doesn't even make sense. In the analog realm, dynamic range is the difference between the loudest signal that can be reproduced and the noise floor. That makes sense (to me), but there is no good correlation in the digital realm. To me, I look at the maximum signal that can be represented with the 16 bits to the smallest signal that can be represented. But if you consider the smallest signal to be 1 bit, then the distortion would be 50%. That isn't music. 2 bits would be 25% distortion. Still not music. Where do you draw the line? If you say it has to be less than 1% then you need 7 bits as a minimum. That only leaves a dynamic range of about 54 dB from the loudest signal that can be represented to the smallest signal that can be represented with less than 1% distortion. Not very good in my mind. Dithering (adding +/- 1/2 lsb or so of random noise) during recording is supposed to help the matter somewhat, but it is difficult for me to see how this helps on "random" signals like music. That is way I am interested in seeing techniques applied (like in the original post)that are not based on repetitive signals like sine waves. It is easy to see how dithering works on repetitive signals, but I have trouble seeing how it helps much on music. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
adamdea;629265 Wrote: > I get very confused by the question of whether it is possible to record > anything below the fourteenth bit if the noise floor of the room is > 30DB and the peak 110 dB Not even that. You may also wonder if it is possible to find a place to playback your music without a noisefloor. I suppose that even in a bunker you have low-level noise. -- Wombat Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;629244 Wrote: > Just like the times my checking account reaches below a dollar. Then > the least significant digits alone do convey meaning. > You are right with that of cause but even for that scenario 16bit should be enough if we talk about music. You simply had to crank up the volume on these silent parts that much that the normal loud passages will be simply to loud to listen. I wonder if the only real music recordings that really can take full advantage of greater bit resolution are some weird ultra-silent recordings with huge dynamic jumps no one really can listen at home. I only remember the half of the analogy i quote now but if you really want to produce 24bit stuff you must without compromize play the starting noise of a Boing 747 at original volume and still have to pick up the noise of a human breathing next to you, or kind of... Good luck with that :) -- Wombat Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;629244 Wrote: > I guess we have to agree to disagree. I see no reason to expect the > LSBs to be anything but noise if you strip away the MSBs. The > exception to this of course is when the MSBs are zero anyway (very > quiet passages). That might be when you hear some hint of the music in > the LSBs only. Just like the times my checking account reaches below a > dollar. Then the least significant digits alone do convey meaning. > > Terry I think you are right Terry. But (pedantry alert) in your exception case I would have thought they aren't really LSBs (they are the only SBs) -I am preparing to be shouted at but I think a leading 0 is not an SB. As to whether one ever really gets to the last few digits only I get very confused by the question of whether it is possible to record anything below the fourteenth bit if the noise floor of the room is 30DB and the peak 110 dB -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Wombat;629240 Wrote: > Of cause you should expect something usefull from these. On synthetic > files and other rare occations you hear information in these. If you > only hear pure constant noise in it then you can leave it away cause it > doesn´t mean like more resolution then. I guess we have to agree to disagree. I see no reason to expect the LSBs to be anything but noise if you strip away the MSBs. The exception to this of course is when the MSBs are zero anyway (very quiet passages). That might be when you hear some hint of the music in the LSBs only. Just like the times my checking account reaches below a dollar. Then the least significant digits alone do convey meaning. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
OK, two scenarios then. ;) -- Soulkeeper -that is not dead which can eternal lie. and with strange aeons even death may die.- touch + duet + boom + radio / wrt160n/dd-wrt / sbs 7.5.1 or higher/win7(32b)/avira free Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
The reason why the LSBs don't carry information by themselves, is that they're entirely dependant on the MSBs. Nice analogy, TerryS. Both intuitive and accurate. There's only one scenario where the cents make sense without the dollars, and that is if there's some correlation between them. If you always buy stuff costing $9.99, you can interpret the constant $0.01 increase to be a $9.99 dicrease, and thereby reconstruct the MSBs. But if you don't, you're out of luck. And in no kind of normal music is there a correlation between the MSBs and the LSBs. Again, a very nice analogy there. -- Soulkeeper -that is not dead which can eternal lie. and with strange aeons even death may die.- touch + duet + boom + radio / wrt160n/dd-wrt / sbs 7.5.1 or higher/win7(32b)/avira free Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;629236 Wrote: > You can't strip off the MSBs and expect anything useful from the LSBs. > But add the LSBs to the MSBs and you get more resolution. > Of cause you should expect something usefull from these. On synthetic files and other rare occations you hear information in these. If you only hear pure constant noise in it then you can leave it away cause it doesn´t mean like more resolution then. -- Wombat Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Wombat;629231 Wrote: > Exactly this is NOT happening. The letters have a meaning, uncorrelated > noise does not. Here is a better example. Let's pretend we are looking at my checking account through several weeks. $1,127.50 $956.30 $902.45 $876.90 $807.33 $756.87 $1200.36 $1150.65 Pretty easy to see that I am spending money, then got paid.. You could even lose some resolution by stripping off the least significant digits: $1,127 $956 $902 $876 $807 $756 $1200 $1150 You can still see what is going on with my checking account. Were those least significant digits important? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on your point of view. But what if we strip off the most signifincant digits and only examine the least significant: $0.50 $0.30 $0.45 $0.90 $0.33 $0.87 $0.36 $0.65 Can you tell anything about my checking account from that? Nope. Looks like noise. That's the way numbers work. Same for the digital samples versus time that represent the music on a CD. You can't strip off the MSBs and expect anything useful from the LSBs. But add the LSBs to the MSBs and you get more resolution. Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
TerryS;629094 Wrote: > It is almost like if I took a book and removed all but the last two > letters in each word. It would be gibberish. Exactly this is NOT happening. The letters have a meaning, uncorrelated noise does not. -- Wombat Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
Phil Leigh;629113 Wrote: > Personally I think the big breakthrough we need is to find a way for us > to stop listening to the equipment and the "recording" and to start > listening to the music instead - this is what your wife is doing. > Clearly this is not a function of the equipment or the music - it is a > function of our brains. Gee, I had too look and make sure this was in the Audiophile Forum :-) I can't argue the logic of what you say, but I don't think you are going to convince the audiophile to quit his pursuit of perfection and "just listen to the music". I agree that some (maybe even most) source material is not so great. And speakers can be significant producers of distortion, As are albums, cassette tapes, and many other sources. CDs are often mastered poorly. Should I give up? Maybe. Will I give up? NFW! There is better source material available. Hi-Res downloads can be found that (to me) sound wonderful. I can listen to head-phones that (I am guessing) will have lower distortion than full sized speakers. It is getting pretty good. But am I going to say "That's as good as it ever needs to be" and quit looking for better? Maybe when I die, and probably not even then. Am I going to rush out and buy cable supports and new mains cables based on the report that was the start of this thread (remember the start of this thread?)? No. Unfortunately, my checking account keeps my audiophile tendancies under control. But I am always interested in what is out there that might be better. Be that better equipment, better source material, or a better way to measure the performance of it all. But through it all, sometimes I do manage to "just listen to the music". Terry -- TerryS TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
darrenyeats;629127 Wrote: > I'm continually amazed at the poor quality of most recordings! snipped> I'm not sure I'd buy into your statement regard "most" recordings, but there some issues. 1. Fad & fashion. This has always been a factor. A lot of pop in the 1960s was mixed with an eye toward standing out on AM radio. A lot of 1970s rock was recorded with muffled drums. Multi-channel mono - the preferred method of pop/rock recording - can be done discretely or abused. There are plenty of other examples. Unfortunately, the "loudness wars" has infected a lot of modern recordings. I gather this may be something to do with not inconveniencing an ipod listener with having to adjust the volume control between tracks. Who knows, but it is a sad practice. 2. Special effects have become commonplace on even inexpensive digital recording gear. Give a boy a toy and he must play with it. This results in many overprocessed recordings. 3. While there are some excellent recordings from the old days, there are a lot of medicocre and even lousy ones too. One needs to be careful not to glamorize the past. I've come across some immensely enjoyable recent recordings. If you like female jazz vocalists, for example, check out Erin Bode. -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] For the objectivist/empiricists in the crowd
I'm continually amazed at the poor quality of most recordings! To my ears 60s jazz and even many Elvis hits have far better sound quality than 99% of modern (80s onwards...I show my age) pop, rock and indie music. Unfortunately, I like some of the latter and I have to put up with frankly awful standards which are generally getting worse. To my ears most (not all but most) remasters of pop and rock music sound worse than the originals. What gives? The technology is better yet the results deteriorate. One of the most obvious problems is dynamic compression. Rest assured red book is capable of conveying stunning recordings in all their glory. To me these few prove red book is not the problem. The problem is, as Phil says, the deliberate or incompetent mangling beforehand! Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB3, SB Touch SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=87175 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
