FFTs as a measurement tool in Audio

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are making the claims now. Perhaps you need to be more clear on what you want.
Ah, Pano, this is an old trick that you constantly use - unless I can say what test I want you think that invalidates my question to the "experts" in these FFT plots. It's a simple question & has been answered - FFT plots need to be very carefully used & the resulting analysis carefully framed. Something that is maybe lacking in this forum. I used the FFTs that I have experience of as an example but I wonder how many more examples there are within these forum walls?
 
FFT is a subclass of Fourier transform

Yes. FFT is a way of computing DFT, Discrete Fourier Transform, which is the Fourier Transform applied to a limited set of Discrete Time or sampled signals.

mathematicians operates plus minus infinity

When operating on the set of samples from minus infinity to plus infinity the transform employed is the DTFT, Discrete Time Fourier Transform.

in real life plus minus infinity is not so practical

Yes, so the DFT is used instead of the DTFT.


So FFT is not 100% accurate but easily doable in real life and gives pretty decent approximation for audio signals actually.

Yes. The samples are modified by multiplying with a 'window' (apodization, tapering) function. Different windows produce different inaccuracies. Window function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In general Fourier transform just an interpretation of a complicated hardly to understand from scratch function with a composition of well know simple co-sines. Altogether these co-sines will form us original function.

Yes.

Now instead of feeding original complicated function we can feed into amp-speaker all these co-signes instead. If amp amplifies and speakers radiates all these co-sines equally (that we can be sure about based on frequency response plot) and phase shift is equal for an entire audio band (we can get it from phase plot) and there will be now extra co-sines generated by amp (FFT plot of 1KHz input for example) then we can be happy getting amplified co-sines that would form original complicated signal with multiplied amplitude. Altogether all that could be described by THD parameter imho.

No. The Fourier transform and DFT (FFT) are not generally used for creating signals. We would take the FFT of the original signal (if necessary using a very low THD amplifier). Then we would take the FFT of the amplified signal to compare. The differences show the co-sines added by the amplifier. This is better information than a simple THD.

w

How'm I doing here guys?
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
I don't get the head clamp thing. I'm sitting here listening to Harry Belafonte and no matter how I bob my head up and down, back and forth, round and round, the image stays the same. All voices and instruments in the same place.

Only by turning my head >80 degrees left or right does the image collapse (quickly) to mono. But it's still in the same place. What's the deal?
 
Didn't think you head-banged to Harry Belafonte:)
My origional question was just that though a question, like Pano, I can move my head around, and not notice any real difference. I dont trust myself with subjective tests as I find so many things influence how I hear, even my mood!
 
Audible, But How To Measure It ?......

Ok, question to the experts please.
What is the best measurement methodology (or methods available utilising 96k/24 bit outboard USB soundcard) to discern fine differences in system output - by this the I mean the differences caused by a 'tweak' in an otherwise constant system using a repeatable test signal of any type or an excerpt of any particular musical passage ?.
I am also asking for suggestions on suitable softwares.

Thanks, Eric.
 
It depends on what the tweak is and what it's claimed to do.

That question can't be answered generally- it's like asking, "If I improve my car, how do I measure that?" The main thing is to understand your measurement tools (that means real studying, I'm afraid). A moderately good tool with a skilled brain will get you much further than a great tool with an inadequate brain.
 
If you don't know what you might be looking for then all you can do is compare input with output. Unfortunately this will show differences which are of little concern, such as finite bandwidth. Maybe you need to look at the difference between 'before' and 'after' outputs - this assumes that the test is repeatable, which might not be the case if the ambient RF environment is a factor.
 
It depends on what the tweak is and what it's claimed to do.
Ok so according to this you are only interested in de-bunking claims made rather than any real attempt at testing for a difference. So Steve Eddy is careful to say nothing about his cables other than he likes them & even likes the way they smell. More politics, lest he be tested in any claim?

That question can't be answered generally- it's like asking, "If I improve my car, how do I measure that?" The main thing is to understand your measurement tools (that means real studying, I'm afraid).
What are you afraid of? The studying? Maybe you are admitting something here?
A moderately good tool with a skilled brain will get you much further than a great tool with an inadequate brain.
And would you say you have a moderately good tool or an skilled brain or a good tool & inadequate brain?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.