I don't understand which kinds of illusion you are trying to measure. As has been posted, illusion in stereo (e.g. binaural) is a science (Acoustics). Duplex theory (how human perceive location of sound) is I think long before 1980.
If it is not those kind of illusions (delay and frequencies) then you must be sure first (that you already know about those science) before discussing a different kind of illusion.
I think the big pieces are in place already. I'll start looking more closely at phase relationship vs frequency and phase of fundamental vs harmonics probably using transients as suggested by krivium.
Hi,
At the link you provided, there are some THD tests on the right side of the page.
THD - The Extended Set (62Hz)
THD - The Extended Set (1000Hz)
In these basic THD tests, I can hear 0.001% THD easily.
Furthermore for me ultra-low THD just says "high quality equipment" like they had to spend a lot of time & apply special circuits in the IC, or apply intelligence or aesthetics to the architecture of the driver, et cetera. So ultra-low THD is just an indicative number.
DAC chips & amplifiers such as the LME49720 & LME49990 are not just 'free of noise' or 'free of colouration', they are really unique sounding & aesthetic, it's like a poetry, or song, or musician, or video style, or Nikon lens / Tokina lens.. etc.. in the chip ------ [as long as the DAC is high-quality (for example I don't think a vintage 1990 DAC chip which doesn't measure well will show the difference of the LME49720 versus the LME49990 very well, a modern high quality chip suits them more) & the line-out after the DAC is high-quality (plus I did a lot of listening directly from the line-out i.e. for instance ES9018 -> line-out -> Ety er-4b / Sony EX700 / EX600 / other, ------ or ES9018 -> line-out -> class-A speaker amp -> bookshelf speakers (so then I just rolled the line-out op-amp socket))
The unique sound of DAC chips is so aesthetic to some people that, for example, second-hand & damaged car CD players from 1992 with a PCM1704U-K still sell for thousands in the internet, just for someone to install in their car to get "1704 sound" -- DENON DCT -1 AL 24 Bit Processing CD PLAYER RARE CAR RADIO AUX Top Dual pcm1704 | eBay
All this stuff about people can't hear all kinds of DAC & amplifier audio equipment, or can't see the difference between a 60 Hz monitor & 144 Hz monitor (it's super easy).. is just something like aggressive nihilism......
It's similar to people enforcing their political views by sending AFA / Antifa militant "left-wing people" to go throw rocks through someones windows or run around tainting them, for example when I used to live in Stockholm, sometimes the newspaper would say "Extreme "right-wing" 21 year old found dead after car bomb device [--snip--]", they are a little crazy.
Anyway thankfully diyaudio never discusses politics or religion as a rule (it says up there "no politics or religion") which is hopefully a rule later in any (&/or all) large serious mega-corporations......
Last edited:
My original question to Chris :
because :
The revised fact I get as true is that: If Syn08 can hear it, it can be measured and quantified, otherwise it does not exist. We are fortunate that Syn08 is not deaf otherwise we would not have diyaudio since audio would not have existed.
Last edited:
In this case, are you going to compare two stereo signals or just want to see something in a mono signal?
It is still possible in mono as long as there are different frequencies. The signal is mono but how the sound arrives at your ears are not mono. In this case for greater effect you have to position your head such that the distance from the sound source to your left ear is different with the distance to your right ear.
If it is the relationship between signals in left channel and signal in right channel, I'm sure you can find it if the tools are very sensitive/accurate. Just need someone who has experience in this field to explain how to do it. But I don't see a reason why people have to do that.
What a joke! That’s what you THINK you hear. Blind yourself by using something like ABX/Shootout audio testing tool and post screenshots of your amazing hearing results.
Oh, sorry, I keep forgetting ABX is of no good for true audiophiles, it is stressful and misleading.
Last edited:
Interested
I can identify the OPA627, AD828 & LME49720 without visual information, if it's DAC -> line-out 627/828/49720 -> IEM / speaker
No junk like extra amplifiers.
Keep in mind if I identify these chips without visual information, you know like 20 times in a row correctly which is what all these crazy people ask for.. what did I prove anyway?
Last edited:
Hi indra1,
No more or less than I posted.
We can measure anything before it gets into your brain. Once you start looking into the mind, nothing is constant. There is very little point in measuring something that changes with your mood or how you are feeling from one moment to the next.
All we can hope to do is strive to present an accurate sound field to your ears. Once the signal leaves the surface of the cone of a speaker, we lose control over what happens to it. So the only things under our control is the reproduction train and somewhat, the speaker system. Anything added to the signal, or taken away once the media is read (assuming that happens accurately) is distortion and will deviate the signal from what is accurate. So that means that the lowest distortion is exactly what we must strive for.
Consider this. A performance will always vary if performed time after time. Your perception and enjoyment of even the same, identical performance (impossible, but for the sake of argument let's go with it) will also vary depending on many things that impact you. So given that a person will never experience even the same performance twice the same way, why even attempt to get answers for something that can't be answered because there is no constant? The only one constant we can achieve is reproducing a signal as closely to that signal amplified as possible. By definition that means no distortion. By definition that eliminates poorly performing amplifiers from the running. SET amplifiers are eliminated by their own characteristics, as are single driver speakers. If they sound acceptable to you - okay that's fine.
There is no end to very expensive systems that have almost good specs that don't sound good. High price is almost certainly an under-performing system. By the same token, inexpensive systems also don't sound good. There is that reasonable price point where the quality and performance come together and create an accurate, good sounding system.
Something else I have seen. As the system becomes more accurate, the more people like it. As different technologies perform at higher levels, the more they sound the same. I had a solid state amplifier that sounded good, but the highs were irritating. Friends who preferred tube gear hated it. I modified it and once done, the tweeters that used to annoy me no longer did and the amplifier sounded better. Surprise, surprise, my friends who like tube gear really like that amplifier. Some bought the same model and had me modify them the same way and they are now very happy.
Something to think about. The technology isn't to blame for a sound. The design is.
-Chris
No more or less than I posted.
We can measure anything before it gets into your brain. Once you start looking into the mind, nothing is constant. There is very little point in measuring something that changes with your mood or how you are feeling from one moment to the next.
All we can hope to do is strive to present an accurate sound field to your ears. Once the signal leaves the surface of the cone of a speaker, we lose control over what happens to it. So the only things under our control is the reproduction train and somewhat, the speaker system. Anything added to the signal, or taken away once the media is read (assuming that happens accurately) is distortion and will deviate the signal from what is accurate. So that means that the lowest distortion is exactly what we must strive for.
Consider this. A performance will always vary if performed time after time. Your perception and enjoyment of even the same, identical performance (impossible, but for the sake of argument let's go with it) will also vary depending on many things that impact you. So given that a person will never experience even the same performance twice the same way, why even attempt to get answers for something that can't be answered because there is no constant? The only one constant we can achieve is reproducing a signal as closely to that signal amplified as possible. By definition that means no distortion. By definition that eliminates poorly performing amplifiers from the running. SET amplifiers are eliminated by their own characteristics, as are single driver speakers. If they sound acceptable to you - okay that's fine.
There is no end to very expensive systems that have almost good specs that don't sound good. High price is almost certainly an under-performing system. By the same token, inexpensive systems also don't sound good. There is that reasonable price point where the quality and performance come together and create an accurate, good sounding system.
Something else I have seen. As the system becomes more accurate, the more people like it. As different technologies perform at higher levels, the more they sound the same. I had a solid state amplifier that sounded good, but the highs were irritating. Friends who preferred tube gear hated it. I modified it and once done, the tweeters that used to annoy me no longer did and the amplifier sounded better. Surprise, surprise, my friends who like tube gear really like that amplifier. Some bought the same model and had me modify them the same way and they are now very happy.
Something to think about. The technology isn't to blame for a sound. The design is.
-Chris
I doubt you want to learn.
The human perception can not describe only by THD and IMD. We judge all characteristic of the sound at one time. But measurement only state one characteristic of the signal. As Dr. Gedlee said, human perception is more sensitive to harmonic profile than THD. And the characteristic of the sound is not only THD, but many like signal to noise ratio, etc.
THD at single frequency and single power level is useless.
AD828 is not a great choice for audio and doesn't even appear to be unity gain stable. You seem to have no idea what you are doing so I'm not surprised.
You prove that the output measurements are likely very different (most probably "defects").
Remember that the output is not only the function of the chip but the parts surrounding it. So there is possibility that when the outputs are made similar (by adjusting the surrounding parts differently for each of the chips) you cannot hear the difference.
Last edited:
The Modulus series use a composite amplifier design which is not typical of most LM3886-based designs. It does give much lower distortion figures that the other designs. Forum member tomch did the design and has made many posts on this and other LM3886 amplifier designs.
Once again, I'll quote Mr. Geddes again (after reading posts in those threads I linked to earlier) as saying these THD numbers are meaningless. If that 0.001% THD were all second harmonic no one would be able to hear it. Any transducer gives that much distortion of the second or third harmonic. If it's crossover distortion or similar, many higher harmonics are generated which are quite easily heard.
There are too many ways to generate x.xxx percent THD to say whether a certain value is audible or not.
It sounds much nicer than the traditional junk such as OPA2134 or AD823, it is a clear step up in the speed departments as well, for instance 10x faster in rendering the audio signal than OPA627.
If you say it's a chip for video monitors, yeah maybe it still sounds good.
ABX is very useful with color shifts i.e. visually or with amplitude changes.
ABX is useless in any scenarios where an auditory illusion is introduced.
For example (a visual example), this picture is just random black & white noise the first time anyone sees it, the first time I saw this picture all I saw was black & white dots for several minutes, nothing at all. However, now if I look at it over 5 years later since the latest time, the 'hidden image' appears in milliseconds, instantly it's just there. So like once something is visually processed (or sonically processed) then it stays in the pre-processing department so every time we see something, it's efficiently delivered in milliseconds (i.e. not looking at the dots for 5 minutes, which is not efficient).
It's really amazing how 5 years plus later, I see the hidden image INSTANTLY like in 10 milliseconds or less, whereas the first time I had to look at the dots for over 5 minutes & couldn't see anything just noise......
https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/26c4/4erz9nnkdmvn829zg.jpg
[* ^ I think this is relevant to the sound quality vs measurement topic]
------
By the way I was clicking around on the THD samples at that site similar to ABX, so I should be able to ABX the THD samples at that site (I will check your software link & see what little ABX demons you have hiding there).
Concerning ABX method, if someone has some kind of a high-end portable DAP such as the Calyx M using the Sabre ESS ES9018 in some advanced way so it sounds pretty, then they are listening to the sound alone & liking the sound alone. Alone is no ABX'ing.
Therefore, even if ABX is excellent in identifying microscopic visual color changes, or microscopic auditory volume changes, we are listening to a high-end DAP or DAC / Amp alone, therefore evidence should ideally come from the same alone setup.
So for example if there is an empty room with some bookshelf speakers, powered by a transparent class-A amplifier, then I can connect either the Calyx M to the amplifier, or the SanDisk Clip+ to the amplifier & I can't see it, then I can hear if it's the SanDisk Clip+ or the Calyx M & so can hundreds of other people..... this is nothing controversial. You're just one of those nihilists saying that a $60,000 Stradivarius clone violin sounds the same as a $250 junkyard violin from China & x university has 'proven' the thresholds of human hearing in xyz domains. Actually all university papers are just theories waiting to be outclassed by future papers, anyway.
Now regarding that room with the bookshelf speakers, if someone changed the cables going to the bookshelf speakers to Silver, or changed the entire room to have a thin Magnesium/other metal reflective dome which keeps away all the radio & Wi-Fi & stuff... then no, I don't think I can hear that in any testing environment, with any speaker (it's possible, although I find it unlikely that humans can hear Copper versus Silver cables, since if I try to imagine how it's possible... there are some electrons delivered faster/more_uniformly on the Silver cable (they use Silver cables in some satellites since it has a higher conductivity & doen't oxidize to get the green coating on it in space)... no it doesn't make sense to me. However it's possible there's something I don't understand & it's audible. Nevertheless, the DAC unit / amp unit are the ' medium fish ' & the speaker or IEM is the ' large fish ' & everything else is ' tiny fish ' at least I think that's vaguely accurate, or the speaker / IEM is the ' invisible fish ' then you roll the rest. Or the DAC / Amp is the ' invisible fish ', then you roll the speaker / IEM, so it's up to the individual.
------
I never said I have amazing hearing, I said that millions of humans have developed auditory processing for language / conversation, music & hunting / warfare due to evolution.
The evolution eventually causes humans to be super-good at that stuff, on a case by case basis.
If someone is on a ship at sea with no access to language or music, then all that evolution is "turned off" & 100,000 years of evolution for nothing.
Plus the reason I say the LME49990 sounds so cool is to promote it, that's all. I'm just like " Ok I found a green / blue / violet gemstone, 1) Why does it sound so good? Is it the ultra-low THD? Or other (so I post back & forth in diyaudio getting closer to an answer), 2) I let other people know so then they can enjoy the sound of these chips, as well -- I refer to this visual illusion again where it takes a long time to get something into the pre-processing, then it stays there permanently until death --> https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/26c4/4erz9nnkdmvn829zg.jpg
I have no financial gain in all this stuff.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.