True. Similar to what happened to everybody before cars had air conditioning. In the US, hearing the left ear was affected, in the UK it was the right ear.
Many recording engineers today are wise to this stuff and mix using an SPL meter to maintain a standard volume level. Listening fatigue is another problem. People are well aware of these things and learn to manage them. Wasn't always that way.
Okay, maybe more distortion sounds better, up to a point and in some cases. More 3rd harmonic has sometimes been described as sounding more "clear." At least we are now at the point of allowing that different sample rates can have different distortion levels.
If you want to be appalled, read the Rolling Stone interview with Jimmy Iovine. Besides the overall piece being a pinnacle of egotism and indefatigable self-service, he on one hand asserts that he can hear what's wrong with something "a block and a half away". Elsewhere in the same piece he talks about how his kids tease him, by mumbling in a way that makes it hard for him to hear what they are saying based on his acknowledged hearing loss.
This is a man who became a billionaire from the sale of Beats to Apple.
Well, sometimes successful people are not shy about self-promotion. Some people objected to Muhammad Ali on that basis. Or when Jimi Hendrix burning guitars made the headlines. Outrageous! Later, if people decide they like such people after all, then they are credited as having been great showmen.
It is, indeed, my second-favorite organ. But that has nothing to do with the physics of the electronics chain. Nor does gravity, weak force, SU(3) algebras, and mysticism.
Your listening test seemed OK to me, Markw4. I do the same sort of listening tests, myself. I don't dare to put up what I am comparing in my hi fi system at the moment. Even you would balk at the idea that a passive quantum based device could make such a difference, and you are relatively open minded. Most here have a fixed opinion as to what audio quality is, be it digital or electronics in general. They work backwards to condemn anything that shows listening differences where they 'should not be'.
Curious as to your position.
Are you saying that you can "line up" (ie. play/switch between) a reasonably large number of amplifiers that will all sound the same to you, sighted and blind, or blind or sighted, and that are all according to your criteria "transparent"?
Perhaps you may wish to give a few examples?
I'd be interested in trying to get one or more to listen to.
_-_-
Maybe I misunderstood you. If so, sorry. I was trying point out that whatever is heard is a function of the electronics chain and of the listener. Both are physical systems. At this point, so far as I can tell, the only real point of disagreement seems to be what the numbers are for what distortion is audible and what is inaudible, and what conditions affect variations in audibility. So far, nobody has pointed to a proper peer-reviewed, double-blind, adequately replicated scientific study to settle the matter. If there is no such study, fine. What's the best we have?
the electronic signal domain however is a bit different - very little psychoacoustics is needed to se that the best ADC/DAC/Amp chains we know how to make have errors below what humans can hear with common, reasonable system gains structure, listening environments
the EE tech is one of today's most developed, theoretically well based, practically verified measurement technologies - there's simply vanishing room for "other errors" when you can align and difference quality ADC output in the digital domain - and see/hear nothing
I do respect some pros who write - read Bob Katz, Moulton - both are committed to Blind listening with controls for verifying claims
its also easy to find self professed pros on GearSlutz mangling basic EE, Signal Theory, and Psychoacoustics - and no reason to disbelieve their claims to successful mixing careers
the EE tech is one of today's most developed, theoretically well based, practically verified measurement technologies - there's simply vanishing room for "other errors" when you can align and difference quality ADC output in the digital domain - and see/hear nothing
I do respect some pros who write - read Bob Katz, Moulton - both are committed to Blind listening with controls for verifying claims
its also easy to find self professed pros on GearSlutz mangling basic EE, Signal Theory, and Psychoacoustics - and no reason to disbelieve their claims to successful mixing careers
Last edited:
Okay, I decided to purchase the HEDD after listening to a number of A/D converters. I liked it second best, but it was expensive enough so I stopped there. Later, I saw Bob Katz rated the HEDD's A/D as an A+ and the D/A as less, maybe it was B+. I guess I hear it about the same way he does. And that's why I use a DAC-1 for playback instead of HEDD, but use HEDD for recording. Not because of what Katz says, just because I hear "it" too in the equipment, whatever "it" is that Katz apparently hears. You can believe it or not. If you want, you are welcome to come over to my place you and you can see for yourself. I really think most people can hear this stuff I am talking about with a little practice. I do think part of it is learned skill, much like pitch perception is (according to the research I have read). However, much less seems to be known about distortion perception than pitch perception, at least at this point. That's the way it looks to me. And, unfortunately, there are people that claim to hear things that are not in fact real. Makes it way too easy to dismiss anyone who might have hearing more similar to Katz as being a fool.
Last edited:
If you can hear "it", in properly blinded, controlled listening, if "it" is happening in the electronic signal domain, "it" can be measured - as a difference from some reference which you are comparing
there's no question that there are many "colored" electronic components out there - by design or happenstance of a lucky millionth monkey with a soldering iron (lucky if "it" "sounds good" to someone)
there's no question that there are many "colored" electronic components out there - by design or happenstance of a lucky millionth monkey with a soldering iron (lucky if "it" "sounds good" to someone)
Last edited:
My question is when others are talking about distortion in a system how do they know where it comes from? To just blame it on some electronic component without knowing that it is truly from one component and not another and especially from the majority of speakers makes me question how anyone can blame a component in a system since they are so interrelated and synergy is what we seem to be all looking for. Just saying you changed a component in the chain and therefor that is the component causing the distortion is hard to say definitively.
That may be an artifact of the measurement bandwidth. In my testing the harmonics are generally unchanged if the master clock remains the same. Also today's best commercial ADC's and DAC chips (too expensive for mass market but not significant in "premium" audio) are very very good. Usually better measured performance than SOTA analog stuff from 10-20 years ago.
certainly there is enough respectable opinion, even simple engineering measurement conservatism to do critical comparisons with 24/96
just no body of clean, replicated, peer reviewed publications that 16/44 is insufficient for home music delivery
likewise Katz goes well beyond the clear peer reviewed and replicated listening test literature on his estimates of audible jitter threshold
I'm willing to update just as soon as these order of magnitude lower thresholds are demonstrated in new, peer reviewed listening test papers
just no body of clean, replicated, peer reviewed publications that 16/44 is insufficient for home music delivery
likewise Katz goes well beyond the clear peer reviewed and replicated listening test literature on his estimates of audible jitter threshold
I'm willing to update just as soon as these order of magnitude lower thresholds are demonstrated in new, peer reviewed listening test papers
Last edited:
When I measure speakers and headphones I never have seen a situation where the electronic's distortion swamped that of the speaker. There are interactions between the output impedance of the amp and the speaker but even so the speaker always has higher distortion. However its difficult to get high order distortion from a speaker if its not rubbing or otherwise in distress. The physical parts just can't move that fast without the amp's assistance.
For that matter I have not seen anyone demo the difference between AD-DA chains recorded on tape or vinyl, but many analog chains captured to digital to show the differences. Is there a story here (other than how cumbersome analog recording systems are)?
That number holds some water for a single pole compensated amplifier, and can be derived from the output stage frequency/phase response, if implemented even with the best discrete devices available on the market.
When considering multiple poles compensation, there is theoretically no limit in the amount of loop gain available at 20KHz, even with real world output stage power devices, and circuits can even be conveniently synthesized. The limitations are not in the gain-phase, but in the collateral damages that such circuits may induce, in particular the clipping and clipping recovery. Extra circuitry required to tame the overload behaviour must go past the passive anti saturation, usually by killing the loop gain in a controlled manner, so that the feedback loop is never thrown in a dangerous (stability wise) situation. Such circuits are far from trivial, so the overall complexity may increase beyond the point of interest for the average DIYer, the implementation would be very expensive, and being (from the SQ perspective) definitely moot. So such circuits could be safely considered as intellectual games only. Nobody needs them when it comes to audio reproduction.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.