Huh, there would need to be more than two tones - the original tone, the masking tone & the comodulated tone, no ?
If the correct circumstances prevail i.e amplitude comodulation then yes, in complex signals it is occurring all the time so your absolute statement about masking is incorrect
I believe you are missing what CMR is about - it is a psychoacoustic phenomena (not imagined or how someone feels) that results when a signal at a different frequency AMPLITUDE modulates in coherence with the masking signal.
AND, NO CMR will not show on an FFT - it's somewhat due to the psycho-physics of the auditory mechanism & also due to psychoacoustics.
If one wants this can be used as an example of what is audible but not measureable on FFTs as some people seem to demand?
As I said it cuts the legs from under your claim that, due to masking, it is impossible to hear the audible effects of signals/noise close-in to the fundamental.You posted plots in defense of this & I pointed out that CMR reveals the simplistic & incorrect nature of this evidence (these plots) when dealing with sounds found in nature & music playback
Take some time to read the research & try the example in order to understand the concept
Last edited:
What do you not understand about CMR - ask & I will try to answer. Actually, you are quiet wrong in this statement "how signals add is well understood". One of the hot topics in auditory research is the understanding & realization that simple single tone signals were used up to now for such research & that using more complex test signals can change the results. So extrapolating plots/results from simple test signals needs great care & should be pause for thought. This is the scientific approach - always question your results to find their possible weaknesses.
Even though the CMR phenomena has been known about since the 50s the auditory mechanisms underlying this psychoacoustic phenomena is still not fully understood? So saying "how signals add is well understood" is not correct when we take psychoacoustics into account
You seem to also put great faith in FFTS & I already asked you about this but might have missed your answer?
Last edited:
Did someone say there is?
Must have been real bad audio electronic equipment to produce audible jitter. Fortunately for the consumers, those are real hard to find these days.
The quality of playback system (audio electronic replay system) is judged on the fidelity of input vs output. High fidelity, AKA hi-fi is high level of such performance. There is no accounting for personal preference in this context.
Yeah but look who's been trying to blur the line.Anything else that is going on is in the listener's head, and I'm not interested in what goes on in people's heads, usually because they don't know, so how can I?That does not mean I'm not interested in psychoacoustics, I am, I just don't think it's particularly relevant
Not when debunking the audible difference claim from swapping audio electronic components.So psychoacoustics is relevant especially as we are talking about the instruments to find out about listening impressions.
See my reply to mmerrill99 above.
Eh, you did - see above quote
Typical, like 0094's replies on the other thread, you deal with anything but the central point of the post - to show the ACTUAL difficulties in a REAL ABX test. Care to deal with that aspect rather than your spurious OT reply?
BTW that summary post of his ABX test experience had nothing to do with jitter differentiation.
And what's being said is that current sets of measurements are not sufficient to fully characterize the performance of the DUT when complex music signals are being processed - you are simply extrapolating from simple test signals without pause for thought - as is seen in the masking plots example & bullish statements by BV.
Auditory processing is fr more adept at analysing these signals to & deciding if they fit the internal modelling that has been learned by this faculty by exposure to & learning from how real world sounds behave over however many years you have been on this planet
No, you haven't, not the answer to the claim you've made.
For the sake of debate, lets say you did provide just one after claiming that there are lots, that would make your claim false, technically speaking.
You make no logical sense - in reply to Jakob "psychoacoustics is relevant especially as we are talking about the instruments to find out about listening impressions." you state the above.
So let me parse what you say - you are claiming psychoacoustics is NOT relevant to audible differences?
I suppose if you have your own definition of what psychoacoustics is then this makes perfect logical sense to you but yr definition is wrong so use another term which is not in disagreement with the scientific definition.
Another one with reading comprehension problem?
What does the word "devices" with "s" at the end mean to you?Perhaps you didn't understand what my reply is about. It's not hard to measure audio electronic components for their level of fidelity between input and output. Most of those components on the market are very hi-fi these days. Higher than your ears can hear.
Is English not your first language? I'm asking because you keep misunderstanding basic English here.
@evenharmnics Do you not see that measurements can only reveal what is being searched for - it cannot reveal what is not being searched for (except by chance). Measurements are designed with test signals & conditions setup to best reveal a given aspect the DUT. That's what I mean by "no universal audio measurement"
A lot of people are under the misunderstanding that we have all the measurements we need to reveal what is audible - just as they are under the impression that when we listen, we hear everything in the sound field - neither is true. We focus on aspects of the soundfied & vary this focus as we wish but it is generally focussed on particular aspects of the sound field to the exclusion of others aspects - just as measurements focus on particular aspects of the DUT to the exclusion of other aspects
Before the concept of jitter there was no measurement revealing jitter - Dunn developed a particular test signal designed to exaggerate the intersymbol interference thought to be inherent in SPDIF receivers & this test signal revealed different jitter performances of different SPDIF receivers/implementations.
Max & planet10 cited an example of a factor in audio signals which, from experience, they claim is audible (& I agree with). Is anybody doing a measurement which might reveal this aspect? No. So audio measurements need to catch up with psychoacoustics.
Is anybody interpreting measurements with knowledge of CMR or are they simply dismissing close-in sidebands as being irrelevant because of their simplistic knowledge of masking?
A lot of people are under the misunderstanding that we have all the measurements we need to reveal what is audible - just as they are under the impression that when we listen, we hear everything in the sound field - neither is true. We focus on aspects of the soundfied & vary this focus as we wish but it is generally focussed on particular aspects of the sound field to the exclusion of others aspects - just as measurements focus on particular aspects of the DUT to the exclusion of other aspects
Before the concept of jitter there was no measurement revealing jitter - Dunn developed a particular test signal designed to exaggerate the intersymbol interference thought to be inherent in SPDIF receivers & this test signal revealed different jitter performances of different SPDIF receivers/implementations.
Max & planet10 cited an example of a factor in audio signals which, from experience, they claim is audible (& I agree with). Is anybody doing a measurement which might reveal this aspect? No. So audio measurements need to catch up with psychoacoustics.
Is anybody interpreting measurements with knowledge of CMR or are they simply dismissing close-in sidebands as being irrelevant because of their simplistic knowledge of masking?
Complex music signal is the same signal as test signals. One voltage in one moment, composed from one or many signals. Antrophomorfic look at signal "complexity" and e. eg amplifier behaviour is missleading. If one component will create any distortion (linear or nonlinear) with music, must (and will) do the same with test signal(s).
I think you are missing something ... If it's psycho- acoustic phenomena, do not forget the "acoustic" part, the real stimulus. If this acoustic stimulus does not change (demonstrated by measurements ...), how can it change the result? How can one distinguish between the two components that produce the same acoustic stimulus? Just in this "psycho" part of the processing, exactly in the section "you imagined or how someone feels". If it's in sighted test, it's the result of many other stimuli, the sound is last important. The blind test does not have this other stimuli, so the results are "uncertain" because the only stimulus (sound) is undistinguishable.
But it was well known (and measured)as frequency modulation.. Jitter is only specific case of FM (and distortion) during digital processing of audio, caused by time uncertainities. And Dunn created signal for simple measurement of this phenomena - visible in new spectra components.
Last edited:
Sure, I knew that would be your reply so give us the full set of measurements that fully characterizes a DAC, for example - that should be easy as they all sound the same, right?Another one with reading comprehension problem?
As I said above - produce the measurement evidence for this fidelity
Don't try to get insulting with well worn ad-homs, it's typically boring - just try to stick to answering the points raised for a less boring discussion. So what is your answer?
Do you mean DDR? Seems to me they said different things. Do you know what they mean?
As I said extrapolation, no matter how hard you try to state otherwise & bullish you become, is just that, extrapolation. I already gave you an example of a difference between simple test signals & music or natural word signals as far as auditory perception is concerned.
Look, you don't know what psychoacoustics means so please don't try to parse it - you are simply going against its scientific definition.
Yea, I know the well worn argument & it boils down to two pillars:
- we have all the measurements needed that define hi-fidelity - anything which challenges or even asks questions about this is pure imagining
- we have numerous ABX (typically) tests that 'prove' differences when sighted which disappear when ABX (typically) is used.
The weaknesses with these arguments are:
- you are testing the DUT with test signals not used in its normal use i.e music listening & trying to claim that this shows what auditory perception will perceive
- The analysis & interpretation of measurements which are often simplistic, as seen in one example - BV's (& many others) claims of masking
- The simplistic view of what a valid ABX test entails so any null test is accepted as growing 'proof'of inaudibiity. Again using a test which takes the listener out of their normal listening mode & claiming it is 'fine, it's just the removal of a bias'
Sorry but your arguments don't hold water.
I have given scientific research where the claim of masking was wrong in certain circumstances related to music. All I hear back are repeated statements 'we are not wrong, we are not wrong' nothing else!
I'm sorry if you can't follow the thread but you will need to do your own work & go back to read what they said & what they meant
- Status
- Not open for further replies.