Auditory Perception in relation to this hobby

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#242
scottjoplin said:
Haha, no, I was implying that NFM in DAC's was all you seemed to be interested in 😉
Click to expand...
Its odd how you work - up to yesterday, NFM was hardly ever mentioned - lots of other topics in auditory perception were instead

I'm happy to learn anything about psychoacoustics that can be proven, or can be shown to be a real effect, there's plenty of it, and it's important for the enjoyment of music in our rooms.
Click to expand...
Really? You seemed keen to discuss NFM, yesterday now not so much? Why?

Surely the example I gave about PCM1794 current reference shows that stability of references are crucial in this cas on a current segment DAC. Anybody want to guess what the change in output can be measured by this move from resistor to CCS current ref? Its very audible as can be seen on this thread

Some people complain that psychoacoustics (this thread) is just abstract talk - now here's something practical to try/analyze/measure. The iRef is shown as resistor to ground - replace with CCS of the same current & sound improves substantially

15051492115_5f41d12dbc_o.png
 
#243
mmerrill99 said:
Its odd how you work - up to yesterday, NFM was hardly ever mentioned - lots of other topics in auditory perception were instead
Click to expand...
You first described NFM in post 13, before that there was some chat about TV's and autism. Are you autistic?
The rest of your post seems to suggest all you want to talk about is NFM in DAC's which appears to be an audible issue only for you, no one else seems to think it's particularly important
 
#244
scottjoplin said:
You first described NFM in post 13, before that there was some chat about TV's and autism. Are you autistic?
Click to expand...
Come on, you asked a question on another thread which you brought here (at my suggestion so as not to pollute other thread) & I replied to in post 13 giving background to your question. Enough with the attempted insults

Up to that point & after I/we talked about ASA, perceptual narrowing, autism, visual perception & auditory perception learning models, foreground/backgrouns in scene analysis, summary statistics in auditory perception

You are the main instigator of the NFM subject although I'm happy to accommodate as I believe it is of great importance.
The rest of your post seems to suggest all you want to talk about is NFM in DAC's which appears to be an audible issue only for you, no one else seems to think it's particularly important
Click to expand...
So you ignore Markw4 & Dan's posts on this thread? - there are others on this forum if you do a search - Mallinson & Watts, ESS engineer & DAC designers Chord engineer & DAC designer, respectively?
 
Last edited:
#249
scottjoplin said:
The 5%?
Click to expand...

Scott W. might be right about the number, don't know. But, I don't think it so much has to do with implementation at the board level. Maybe at the chip level. ESS Sabre dac chips have some of that, and ESS says it can bother some people. One reason for paralleling high current dac outputs is to get noise levels down low enough that not even people like Howie will hopefully be able to hear the NFM.
 
#252
The reason I asked, and it's a genuine question is because of the way you appear to misunderstand me, as above, I'm not suggesting you didn't know NFM was in post 13. You make a lot of assumptions that are way off the mark. Why do you assume all autistic people would be insulted to be asked if they are autistic? Are you being a social justice warrior again?
 
Last edited:
#253
Anybody got a link to this 5% or .05% that's being spoken of?

All i found was this

I can start the discussion stating I can sometimes hear a difference in the Pono when running from the internal battery or when being charged by a 5V USB adapter, so some of the difference between DAs may be PS residuals an/or common-mode mains noise conduction. DAs powered by the USB like the Dragonfly could potentially suffer similar issues, as could any mains-powered DA without a good enough PS or mains isolation. Interestingly with the Pono this difference happens without any noise audible in quiet/between tracks parts. This implies a form of dynamic modulation only when there is signal. Does this mean the PSRR is good, and there is another mechanism by which PS noise can modulate the audio? I have always (perhaps blindly) thought that PSRR spec took into account any PS AC components getting into the signal path in the specified bandwidth. What say ye geniuses?

Howie
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#254
scottjoplin said:
The reason I asked, and it's a genuine question is because of the way you appear to misunderstand me, as above, I'm not suggesting you didn't know NFM was in post 13. You make a lot of assumptions that are way off the mark. Why do you assume all autistic people would be insulted to be asked if they are autistic? Are you being a social justice warrior again?
Click to expand...

ScottJ, consider this date is officially now off - you're too high maintenance 😱
 
#256
I was referring to something different than Scott and Mark. 5% was a figure Earl Geddes plucked out of the air to refer to the number golden eared people he thought might be able to hear stuff that can't be measured, Mark liked the sound of it 😉
 
#259
mmerrill99 said:
the other is more macro listening - does it engage, does it fatigue, does it draw me in, do I have a better connection to the music
Click to expand...

MM, i think you'll love this one: You will easily be able to differentiate good singers and musicians from the ordinary ones. MP3 of good singer or musician will be better than audiophile recording of unknown artists.

I didn't work with musicians. I thought it was luck that made some of them big. Until i had my system and listened a top local artist in a radio... then i heard another one, and another one, and another one... Wow.

This 'rightness' cannot be just caused by low noise or thd...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom