All I know re opamps is that if you use two identical mono crossovers but with different opamps in them you can't get a stable stereo image.
I am assuming that both said opamps work happily within the same circuit. I haven't tried anything that requires changes (bypass caps etc) in the ancillary circuits.
Also I find that I while I would struggle to detect an overall volume change of 1dB I find it very easy to detect fractions of a dB difference when it comes to stereo balance.
I don't think I would be able to easily distinguish between TL072s and 353s if I had two stereo sets of crossovers filled with one type each. On the other hand I suspect it would be easy to tell between those two and 2134s although any 'evidence' I have is anecdotal.
On a side note many on gearslutz were surprised when one guy scored 100% accuracy when comparing a convertor clocked by two different external clocks in a blind ABX test.
However it must be said that due to a design quirk the convertor in question is the only one which can measurably improved by an external clock.
That said once he told everybody what he was listening out for most others could also score in the high 90% bracket.
I am assuming that both said opamps work happily within the same circuit. I haven't tried anything that requires changes (bypass caps etc) in the ancillary circuits.
Also I find that I while I would struggle to detect an overall volume change of 1dB I find it very easy to detect fractions of a dB difference when it comes to stereo balance.
I don't think I would be able to easily distinguish between TL072s and 353s if I had two stereo sets of crossovers filled with one type each. On the other hand I suspect it would be easy to tell between those two and 2134s although any 'evidence' I have is anecdotal.
On a side note many on gearslutz were surprised when one guy scored 100% accuracy when comparing a convertor clocked by two different external clocks in a blind ABX test.
However it must be said that due to a design quirk the convertor in question is the only one which can measurably improved by an external clock.
That said once he told everybody what he was listening out for most others could also score in the high 90% bracket.
You can gradually work towards non-destructive limits (e.g. raising source output impedance, lowering source output voltage, lowering power supply voltage, increasing source common mode noise) until 50% of your subjects can reliably identify a difference in an ABX test; or 50% can devise an experiment that would reliably measure the difference.
Some op-amps will allow for dramatic changes with little to no audible/measurable effects; some will quickly and obviously hiss, clip or otherwise distort; some others will outright oscillate. I'll take the first category as the "better" one.
I knew you would question that. Yes, extra-ordinary claim requires extra-ordinary evidence. Do you think I didn't do FoobarABX when I was given a preference test? I always did!
It is an extra-ordinary claim when somebody who cannot pass a FoobarABX claims that A has lower bass than B while somebody else who can pass a FoobarABX claims the opposite...
When somebody claims that A is better than B and other person claims that B is better than A, assuming that they really can hear differences, it usually is a matter of TASTE. Usually there is no absolute preference, because each DUT can have different strength and weaknesses.
When I can hear the differences, of course I can understand when people prefer TL072, or 5532, or OPA2134, or LM4562, etc... I can also understand if people don't like them. That is why their opinion is important. If you can hear differences, you should be able to describe the differences!
When people say that 4558 has higher resolution than LM4562, then I will disagree and question their opinion or understanding about "resolution"... But if they prefer 4558 because they feel it is more calm or musical, that is possible...
I agree with him. My hypothesis is still valid: When people claim they can hear differences between A and B, it can be true even if they cannot pass FoobarABX. The possibility they can hear such difference is higher when I can do FoobarABX and my assessment is in accordance with their claim...
Many if not all of his claims are actually in accordance with my findings.
Not at all. If I can hear that A and B is different, and then there is another person claims that A and B is different, how can I say that they have to be liars??
If somebody else claim that A and B is the same to his ears but he thinks that somebody else may hear difference, then deaf or not, it is also normal...
If somebody else claim that A and B is the same and cannot be different, then this is also common. Usually with people who cannot see their limits. If they cannot do something then they will think that there will be nobody else who can do it...
There's no way I can force them to do a FoobarABX to prove their claim. But at least, I can request them to set up the test so I can prove that they are wrong... if they refuse and put the burden on me to prove my extra-ordinary claim by setting up the test myself, then who is in need of the proof? 😀
I just had another close listen to Foobar ABX and I still find the ABX applet sounds different (noisier) to the original tracks.
I'd call it Fukashimaed.
Dan.
Maybe in the sense the signal sort of floats atop some noise, perhaps partially submerged. Thus the noise could place the signal in some context that affects perception. Magnetic tape hiss perhaps being one example that people sometimes cite.
I agree, just that people with extra ordinary abilities usually want to demonstrate them for an audience of disbelievers. We can't seem to get that to happen.
There are lots of noises that affect perception.
At least some of these noises can also be essentially removed.
Dan.
Do you mean in front an audience of eyewitnesses? If so, getting everybody together physically might be the most difficult part. If not, how would you see a remote audience setup working?
I don't think that's exactly what Max is up to. I don't know if he wants to say more about what that might be, though. It has occurred to me before that noise could be leveraged to affect sound in a good way. That is, to enhance some music. Noise is already used for some some music synthesis, but it could also provide some background texture, and might be used to mask some things that aren't otherwise easy to get rid of.
Last edited:
Mark, you're taking me too seriously. 🙂 I just gave the, well, you know, classical ways of dealing with noise. (You could LN2/peltier your input pair, too I suppose). Yes, he writes about noise with a non-classical definition.
I'm not sure he is using a non-classical definition. He may literally be trying to put actual noise to some use. You were talking about ways to get rid of noise. He might want to add some, or modify some. Like adding simulated tape hiss to a digital recording to make it sound more natural, or more like people are used to hearing. There are already VST plugins for doing some of that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.