I would imagine that it varies per individual, per interest of the individual in music reproduction, per how much one has been trained in being sensitive to artifacts. There is no standard, can never be - you might as well measure other things, like body size, and sensitivity to comfort - and say, okay, there is one size of clothing manufactured, and one level of mattress firmness, because that's the average - it you don't like what you get, tough !!
An intelligent approach would be to gather a decent sized, representative collection of listeners interested in better audio, do some sensitising, then do some measuring - and finally publish lots of lovely graphs, 🙂 ... manufacturers and others can then take away what's meaningful for them.
Now, who's going to step up and fund this ... ?
An intelligent approach would be to gather a decent sized, representative collection of listeners interested in better audio, do some sensitising, then do some measuring - and finally publish lots of lovely graphs, 🙂 ... manufacturers and others can then take away what's meaningful for them.
Now, who's going to step up and fund this ... ?
Last edited:
As a reference point, this article talks about such things, Human Hearing - Distortion Audibility Part 3 | Audioholics, with mentions of studies.
fas42;4361739here is no[I said:
It does not matter if I stop hearing distortion earlier than you. There is a minimum level below which *no one* can hear: it is measurable.
And the numbers are *enormous*. Which is why there is a focus on speakers, and not on electronics.
That sounds religious: there will come a person that will validate your efforts.
What if no such person comes? What if it really is just bias that is the driving force?
We already have ways to manage bias. They are not difficult to implement, and certainly add no detectable distortion products.
Klippel have a THD test on their site so you can find out for yourself in a double blind test. Individual results vary wildly.
Listening Test
Through my speakers I could hear added distortion at -45dB but not at -48dB.
Don't know if that is my absolute threshold because my speakers themselves are rated at 0.5% (-46dB).
Need to get (build) better ones and try again sometime.
Thank you Charles Darwin!
It may be that the speakers are the limiting factor. Which makes all talk of hearing distortion at -90 dB irrelevant.
It may be that the speakers are the limiting factor. Which makes all talk of hearing distortion at -90 dB irrelevant.
We're talking about the distortion artifacts which are the difference between ordinary and convincing playback. If you don't accept the latter as being part of the deal that's fine, but there are a number who do "get it" - and for those then having a means of obtaining meaningful measurements will be useful.
You obviously have a major problem with someone experiencing something that you don't - well, that's life ... I have never felt the sensations of an astronaut landing on the moon, but I don't turn around and claim that such must be a fantasy.
With distortion, it's not raw magnitudes that matter but the nature of the aberration - this also seems to be a very hard concept for many to wrap their heads around ...
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
why would I want to train myself to listen for distortions - if I can't hear them now wouldn't it be nice to just leave sleeping dogs lie ?
fas42,
So far, you've admitted your "work" lacks any of control of bias, you believe that validation will come from elsewhere, and suggest I have major problems in both experience and understanding. Apparently, just because I don't believe you.
You do realize those are the classic signs of audiophile narcissism?
So far, you've admitted your "work" lacks any of control of bias, you believe that validation will come from elsewhere, and suggest I have major problems in both experience and understanding. Apparently, just because I don't believe you.
You do realize those are the classic signs of audiophile narcissism?
Last edited:
Of course that would be a nice way to go! 😀 ... but, IME, we still pick up the distortions, whether we like it or not - which is what makes us decide that something "sounds good", or that it doesn't. Training oneself just makes one aware of what's going on - which means that you've got a better chance of getting a handle on it! Personally, I prefer to understand what I hearing in the sound that is working vs. not working - blundering around, bumping into things and knocking them over, without a clue where I'm going is not for me ... 🙂.
The experience comes first ... if you've never had it then it's understandable that you have doubts. When I first started chasing this desirable audio behaviour I had terrible problems getting it to sustain, because I didn't understand what was necessary at a technical level to make it reliably happen. If there was any sort of self-deception going on I wouldn't have gone through all that sort of frustration, just for the heck of it, because it was boosting my ego, me thinks.
I've run out of puff for pursing this intensely, so essentially making it known for others who hopefully will have the energy to push it further forward ...
I wouldn't bet on it.
It is quite hard to push forward hot air which as far as I am aware is all that you have given us since you joined.
I'm reminded here of reading long time ago, probably Reader's Digest, of a family where one sibling saw a rainbow, and was raving about it - and all the others said, why are you making such a fuss about it? The punchline was that the one sibling was the only one who didn't have severe colour blindness, the others only saw a fairly drab presentation and weren't particularly interested.
IOW, it's hard to get the message across if one hasn't had direct experience, or having such doesn't appeal. I'm certainly aware that some people prefer the speaker to be very obvious, they obviously are far more interested in hearing precisely how it's working - rather than being able to "hear through it" to the musical message it's presenting.
IOW, it's hard to get the message across if one hasn't had direct experience, or having such doesn't appeal. I'm certainly aware that some people prefer the speaker to be very obvious, they obviously are far more interested in hearing precisely how it's working - rather than being able to "hear through it" to the musical message it's presenting.
Bill, you picked an obscure one there - never heard of him until now, and nothing particularly stands out about his activities ... 
Like I said before, you assume I am "new" because I disagree.
Let me throw this back at you.
fas42, I was once in your camp.
I had a "audiophile life changing experience" that proved uncontrolled testing could not to be trusted, irrespective of how strongly you think you hear something. It is pure ego to think differently.
BigE, what I hear is distortion. In nearly every system, I'm aware of the replay adding distortion, very obviously, and it irritates me. When I don't hear that distortion, I'm happy - it's a very simple process, 😉. If I went into a controlled test, 99.99% of the time I would hear 2 versions of distorted sound, and I would be forced to choose between them. Which is not very interesting.
What is interesting is the lack of distortion, and if one chooses to make oneself aware of that type of sound then one can determine if there is audible distortion, or if there is not.
What is interesting is the lack of distortion, and if one chooses to make oneself aware of that type of sound then one can determine if there is audible distortion, or if there is not.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.