BTW, my research in the 70s (almost 4 years of it) was in frequency hopping SSB where things became unintelligible rather quickly due to many factors, including multi path, diffraction, interference, sky bounce to name a few.
I was responding to tmuikku, sorry I only added his handle a moment ago
@tmuikku,
"It's cool on some tests as it is purely synthetic with full spectrum" Noise is not synthetic, unless it is a kid beating a tin drum and you can eliminate it quickly and effectively. Noise is a result of K x T x Bw x SN
BTW distortion is just another form of noise and repeats itself at specific interval therefore predictable but impossible to remove completely.
"It's cool on some tests as it is purely synthetic with full spectrum" Noise is not synthetic, unless it is a kid beating a tin drum and you can eliminate it quickly and effectively. Noise is a result of K x T x Bw x SN
BTW distortion is just another form of noise and repeats itself at specific interval therefore predictable but impossible to remove completely.
Last edited:
Well you can have all kinds of noise in a playback system, but also generate synthetic noise by algorithm using random numbers, digital noise turned into audio:
https://noisehack.com/generate-noise-web-audio-api/
I bet any random stuff, like many discussions here on diyaudio, could be turned into audible noise 😀
https://noisehack.com/generate-noise-web-audio-api/
I bet any random stuff, like many discussions here on diyaudio, could be turned into audible noise 😀
Totally, and this becomes very very apparent perceptually in my old car with pop radio playing. Radio turned quite low in level and it sounds like there is just some lyrics on top of noise, as all the music just blends with the road noise, it really isn't any different to noise. Turn it louder and some chord changes might appear but it really is still very low fidelity. This is result of both the music production maximixed to death radio making it even worse, and also poor system in the car, psychoacoustic effects on top. But sure enough this is shocking to notice how much music/playback can resemble just noise.
You can have also "random" distortion from memory effects, like hysteresis in driver motor.
I don't believe it is possible to generate anything random in digital the fact that you use a seed proves this. So noisehack.com it is synthetically simulated, it sounds like. 🤣 Anyway, we are deviating from the topic.
You are right digital random numbers created with math is called pseudo-random. If you don't want to make audio noise in digital realm, as if it was not random / noisy enough, you could make it analog from atoms and electrons with electronics.
Randomness on digital world can be increased adding input from analog world, even from simple things like mouse cursor movement, but not sure if it is important for generating audio noise. Randomness for securing information needs real randomness though.
As you said now we are adding to noise on the thread as this is barely relevant to the topic. Reduces amount of topic related information relative to total number of words in the thread 🙂
Randomness on digital world can be increased adding input from analog world, even from simple things like mouse cursor movement, but not sure if it is important for generating audio noise. Randomness for securing information needs real randomness though.
As you said now we are adding to noise on the thread as this is barely relevant to the topic. Reduces amount of topic related information relative to total number of words in the thread 🙂
Last edited:
Logon, I agree with that, everyone will hear discrepancies in sound provided that this person has a reference or mindset for comparison. If not, it seems highly unlikely that he/she could convince this in any way to another individual unless they are together experiencing the same sensation. So does this matter for your enjoyment? Probably not.
Nico, while I agree that it is not important for my fun in listen yo music, in my view it is (very) important fo Audio itself.
Setting this precedent is important for Audio because cooperation is more important than competition (really more similar to a fighting) for extremists who use logic instead of knowledge.
As mentioned, logic cannot replace knowledge, and it seems to me that on the horizon we can somehow give listening the dignity it deserves.
And the fun increases for everyone.
However, the common passion for Audio is able to make us have fun in various ways, not only listening. And sharing your listening experience with other members or with the reader can be very fun, especially if you think that it can even be useful for the reader who finds himself in a similar situation and is not able to try that piece of audio equipment and is completely unaware of its sound characteristics.
We've all heard of Stradivarius and Guarneri, but mainly only that they're really expensive and made by the finest craftsmen in the violin-making game. But of all the violins that any masters made, which sounds the best. Also which combination of audio system would best reproduce each one. I enjoy Pink Floyd and other music from the era, which combination of components will suit me best since their music is already distorted and noisy. Do I need specific ear training to enjoy it more, would the lyrics become better.
Did the artist undergone special ear training before writing their music, what about Beethoven (I detest classical music) I hate Rick Wakeman, so I do not need a system for that.
Some Beetle songs I love, others I can't stand, maybe I should use a different system to make all things I hate better. I cannot eat sheep brains even if you lace it with sugar, I cannot drink vinegar even if you change the label to the finest wine. I avoid explosive sounds, it reminds me of war. I cannot stand the smell of death, I want to puke. But I don't care about dead things or pictures of it, nor why would I want to speculate the colour or contrast of it for my enjoyment.
We listen to things we enjoy over a reproduction system we consider realistic whether it is or not to others. Maybe we can just make a list of brand model of the perfect system and we all go and buy that while any other will just go bankrupt and leave the market. No more choice, this is right for you, I know.
Did the artist undergone special ear training before writing their music, what about Beethoven (I detest classical music) I hate Rick Wakeman, so I do not need a system for that.
Some Beetle songs I love, others I can't stand, maybe I should use a different system to make all things I hate better. I cannot eat sheep brains even if you lace it with sugar, I cannot drink vinegar even if you change the label to the finest wine. I avoid explosive sounds, it reminds me of war. I cannot stand the smell of death, I want to puke. But I don't care about dead things or pictures of it, nor why would I want to speculate the colour or contrast of it for my enjoyment.
We listen to things we enjoy over a reproduction system we consider realistic whether it is or not to others. Maybe we can just make a list of brand model of the perfect system and we all go and buy that while any other will just go bankrupt and leave the market. No more choice, this is right for you, I know.
Last edited:
The best does not exist.
The best is in yor mind, or better, in your world.
Everything around you is the best for you, otherwise it would be somewhere else.
Have you ever heard the expression: "You are the most beautiful person in the world?"
There, that, give meaning just to that...
One more for the noise:
using noise in listening tests feels important and relevant to me because as Nico Ras touched for example non-linear distortion is noise, and I consider any sound that is not the music but sound of the system, contributes to noise as well. I feel noise is sound that is not what you set out to listen to and might be a distraction.
Now, what this has to do with noise listening tests? Obviously the goal for such tests is to evaluate how the noise sounds and feels like. It's not possible to lump all audible things in home stereo to frequency response, the lows the mids and the highs, but some phenomenon appear perceptually in some other ways than "being bright" or "dark", which also relates to listening skill: what kind of effects one is able to pick up from perception other than the frequency response? Noise floor of the system is one, very important, but there is more. Also noise does not govern everything, but it's just one tool in the toolbox.
As my listening skill has been developing during the years I've realized in retrospect that any audible phenomenon I haven't been able to understand at the time has first appeared as feeling that something is not right. Like something pulling my attention out from the music I want to listen to, but I just can't touch it, cannot detect what is it that draws the attention and what to do about it. What ever it is simplest generic goal to help with it is to make it less attention grabbing, right? Not taking any attention it wouldn't interrupt the music listening anymore.
Using this "feeling" as tool I can then use noise in a listening test and target for me would be to make the noise effectively disappear, make it more natural, less attention grabbing, or what ever feels the best option to choose. Now it's not necessary to know exactly what in the perception makes it feel "wrong", no details of the actual problem, but it still might have got "fixed". I could just fool around until the sound feels better and try with those settings for some time and perhaps figure out what it was and was it actually a distraction, or revert back and evaluate again.
This is not very scientific, but something at least, and fun time with the hobby. It's just doing something based on best guess, changing things and observing what happens to the feeling, until it seems to feel better, less distracting. Then afterwards try to reason about it, whether it had anything to do with the sound in normal listening and so on.
In order to build listening skill all this fooling around helps to understand what affects what and what is important and what is not. I think it is very important to do this kind of hands on experimenting, trying to come up with A/B test for any particular phenomenon and so on. Sometimes leads to false assumptions but it's progress nevertheless, builds on previous experiences.
using noise in listening tests feels important and relevant to me because as Nico Ras touched for example non-linear distortion is noise, and I consider any sound that is not the music but sound of the system, contributes to noise as well. I feel noise is sound that is not what you set out to listen to and might be a distraction.
Now, what this has to do with noise listening tests? Obviously the goal for such tests is to evaluate how the noise sounds and feels like. It's not possible to lump all audible things in home stereo to frequency response, the lows the mids and the highs, but some phenomenon appear perceptually in some other ways than "being bright" or "dark", which also relates to listening skill: what kind of effects one is able to pick up from perception other than the frequency response? Noise floor of the system is one, very important, but there is more. Also noise does not govern everything, but it's just one tool in the toolbox.
As my listening skill has been developing during the years I've realized in retrospect that any audible phenomenon I haven't been able to understand at the time has first appeared as feeling that something is not right. Like something pulling my attention out from the music I want to listen to, but I just can't touch it, cannot detect what is it that draws the attention and what to do about it. What ever it is simplest generic goal to help with it is to make it less attention grabbing, right? Not taking any attention it wouldn't interrupt the music listening anymore.
Using this "feeling" as tool I can then use noise in a listening test and target for me would be to make the noise effectively disappear, make it more natural, less attention grabbing, or what ever feels the best option to choose. Now it's not necessary to know exactly what in the perception makes it feel "wrong", no details of the actual problem, but it still might have got "fixed". I could just fool around until the sound feels better and try with those settings for some time and perhaps figure out what it was and was it actually a distraction, or revert back and evaluate again.
This is not very scientific, but something at least, and fun time with the hobby. It's just doing something based on best guess, changing things and observing what happens to the feeling, until it seems to feel better, less distracting. Then afterwards try to reason about it, whether it had anything to do with the sound in normal listening and so on.
In order to build listening skill all this fooling around helps to understand what affects what and what is important and what is not. I think it is very important to do this kind of hands on experimenting, trying to come up with A/B test for any particular phenomenon and so on. Sometimes leads to false assumptions but it's progress nevertheless, builds on previous experiences.
Last edited:
No, not the most beautiful, the most intelligent person in the world. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
There has to exist the best of anything and everything at a specific slice in time.
Sure, it's called State of the Art. 😉
However, I wish you could have read between the lines, but you didn't.
Patience.
Btw: Which is the best car? 🙄
Nonsense. Those graphs are for Thresholds, not exactly for perceived FR independent of volume level.
Its important to understand the difference. Thresholds can be overcome simply by turning up the volume level. Age related threshold changes don't necessarily require any compensating EQ if the volume level is high enough to exceed the thresholds.
Last edited:
semi-true. but still simply turning up the volume would increase the perceived loudness
at different frequencies differently.
So naturally, the aging human hearing organ perception chain surly is distorted and neither high end nor even Hifi.
at different frequencies differently.
So naturally, the aging human hearing organ perception chain surly is distorted and neither high end nor even Hifi.
No. The brain learns over the years how to compensate perception. Most recording and mastering engineers know how to make a good record by ear, and are still able to do it into middle age at least. It usually takes years to learn how to do it in the first place.
However, there is something about learning how to hear; learning listening skills. It isn't just about FR. Far from it.
However, there is something about learning how to hear; learning listening skills. It isn't just about FR. Far from it.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.