Thats not what Johnego was saying. So your saying it seems slower in tempo thou its not? Or does slow have another meaning in there world?
OK, maybe it's not what johnego is saying but that's how I read this "when an audiophile perceived that thru a certain cd player the music/song sounded so SLOW"
It's also what I interpreted Max was saying - maybe I'm wrong.
No, not slower in tempo as that would mean the same song would play longer & that's not what they are saying, I believe?
So, let's examine what Max said "Low 1/f noise of the decoder stage oscillator will make the output sound solid and stable...which can be interpreted as sounding 'slow' when compared to more noisy clocking."
Why would this be perceived as 'faster'? We all pay major attention to the attack portion of sounds. Could it be that when the start (attack portion) of a sound is better defined, auditory perception picks up on this better defined timing of sounds as being relatively faster than a presentation of sounds that have less well defined start of this attack portion. What could cause this attack being less well-defined? It could be osc jitter & thus the timing of the this being affected. It could be low level dynamically changing noise which effects our perception of where the attack sound starts? It could be something else?
Thats a stretch. attack better defined how? Jitter these days is so small i doubt it. If you have flat freq response to 100 Khz the attack will be the same as the original. If you boost 1 to 4 khz then you get more attack. Try eq on a snare drum. Noise at -80db will not change the attack. These are easily tested. But since the people making this stuff up dont do blind testing they will never learn. And sorry, I have trouble believing much from someone who says magic goop on almost any component makes a audible difference.
I'm not talking about fixed, static noise, rather my premise would be dynamic noise that is modulated - I don't think this is easily measured or tested? I believe 'noise' in audio is often treated in a simplistic way (it has many aspects to it) & claims made about how easy it is to test for & eliminate which I don't buy
Jitter is pretty low in most devices these days if measured according to the standard measurements but notice Max mentions "low 1/f noise in oscillators" - what's called close-in phase noise - that's seldom reported for standard oscillators (even ones considered low jitter) & I've never seen it reported for audio equipment.
I'm also not talking about bandwidth affecting the timing of the start of the attack portion of sound - I think what you are mixing this up with is the risetime of the attack?
Last edited:
Uh? I think I'm not sure what either of you are talking about here, requires clarification.....
What I was talking about was the perceived start time of the attack portion of a sound (which could be affected by noise or jitter), not the rise time of the attack (the steepness of the signal rise which is got to do with signal bandwidth).
Any clearer?
Last edited:
Uh?
cbdb stated this about the perception of the start of the attack portion of sound "If you have flat freq response to 100 Khz the attack will be the same as the original. If you boost 1 to 4 khz then you get more attack."
I was telling him that the "start" of the attack is not to do with bandwidth of the signal or even an amplitude increase in a frequency range
Last edited:
He isn't very clear either. I think he was saying that speed is bandwidth. I think you are saying noise can cause a perception of delay of the attack?
Indeed & he throws in amplitude increase between 1 - 4KHz as a change in the perceived attack of cymbals
Yes, noise or timing
Yes, varying noise could also do this as could varying timing which is what jitter is, no?
I don't know, I would have thought it would have to be quite high to effect the way the attack is perceived.
Remember the attack starts at low amplitude & ramps up depending on the risetime of that particular sound - obviously a cymbal strike has fast risetime in comparison to cello bowing but they all start from quiet background
To clarify, it is perception of course. You assumed that anything can be heard can be measured with simple variable like tempo, thd, etc. Audio electronics is a lot more fun than that 😉
Link to the follow-up of this test, part II, has changed
Listening Test Part II. Can you tell which......
Sorry for the inconveniences, it was necessary because of the change in poll options.
Listening Test Part II. Can you tell which......
Sorry for the inconveniences, it was necessary because of the change in poll options.