Your claim is the nonsense. You don't understand what makes noise look like noise on an FFT, do you? You don't know what makes noise audible or not either? Its not just how it looks on an audio FFT.
In any case, a noise floor is like the top of a cloud. Noise floors are not opaque. They are an average value of the top of a cloud of noise. Can you see through part of a cloud when it is on the ground in the form of fog?
Last edited:
Mark, those things are not audible. So low level it doesnt matter for listening to. What matters in any distortion measurement is the level relative to the signal.
If you believe the ASR Cargo Cult Science, then maybe so.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...S1062798713000124a.pdf/cargo-cult-science.pdf
Mark you have no evidence otherwise. ASR uses respected scientific evidence of the limits of human hearing. What are you using? Show us.
"The early history of solitons or solitary waves began in August 1834 when the Victorian Engineer John Scott Russell observed a solitary wave travelling along a Scottish canal. The definitive theory was not published until 1895 by Korteweg and de Vries, working in Amsterdam. The subject was reborn in Plasma Physics in 1958 with the discovery, by J. H. Adlam and the author, of solitary waves in a collisionless plasma containing a magnetic field."
So, back in 1834 when John Scott Russell observed a solitary wave on a river, he was hallucinating because he had no scientific proof on that day? Or does observation come first in science, then it may take considerable time before some observation has been carefully studied and explained scientifically?
As far as ITD mattering, yes it does. It is a widely, well-known, accepted fact that it is needed for ITD localization in stereo sound field. Interchannel phase coherence is an essential factor.
As far a spatial cues go, it has been studied:
https://www.academia.edu/4958145/Su...r_audio_systems_by_the_auralization_technique
So, back in 1834 when John Scott Russell observed a solitary wave on a river, he was hallucinating because he had no scientific proof on that day? Or does observation come first in science, then it may take considerable time before some observation has been carefully studied and explained scientifically?
As far as ITD mattering, yes it does. It is a widely, well-known, accepted fact that it is needed for ITD localization in stereo sound field. Interchannel phase coherence is an essential factor.
As far a spatial cues go, it has been studied:
https://www.academia.edu/4958145/Su...r_audio_systems_by_the_auralization_technique
Last edited:
Why did you come here and ask a question if you didn't want to know the answer. Just to troll?
This thread on ASR annoys me to no end...
So many pages for nothing...Sad..... 🙄 🙄 🙄
So many pages for nothing...Sad..... 🙄 🙄 🙄
?...All ASR members consider in view of the figures...That there cannot be audible differences...Whoever claims otherwise....Has a bad 15 minutes....And the snake bites its tail. 
ASR makes money (advertisments and payed memberships) making people feel great that the cheaper gear beats more expensive gear and that it's all a fraud. Who's heart isn't warmed by that. The cult even has it's very own god named SINAD that is unique to them.
We're very good at picking out periodic changes within a signal, an fft doesn't do this it just gives you the bulk result. By hearing in discrete time frames we can hear the very low level repeating glitch that might only occur in 1 sample 1000. As a raw number its tiny, well below the noise when taken as its overall contribution, but because of its repeating pattern it becomes audible.
Distortion of 10% that only occurs in 1:1000 samples becomes only 0.1% of the overall contribution but stands out like a sore thumb.
Think of it like having one red candy in a bowl of black candies. It's overall contribution to the average weighted colour of the bowl is nothing, but you can sure pick it out. This is what most measurements do, they average. Audio measurements average over time, the way we listen allows us to pick out these things. Sometimes, for some types of distortion and noise.
More research needed, and for the record, I'm a hard objectivist.
Distortion of 10% that only occurs in 1:1000 samples becomes only 0.1% of the overall contribution but stands out like a sore thumb.
Think of it like having one red candy in a bowl of black candies. It's overall contribution to the average weighted colour of the bowl is nothing, but you can sure pick it out. This is what most measurements do, they average. Audio measurements average over time, the way we listen allows us to pick out these things. Sometimes, for some types of distortion and noise.
More research needed, and for the record, I'm a hard objectivist.
It's actually the other way round. Hifi companies make money from audiophools who think they can hear differences between cables and DACs. (see how this works?)
Source for this? It would definitely be measurable. A distortion of 10% is huge and would be measurable. Have you just made this situation up?
No. It works the same in both cases: There is something that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside? Ok, pay us, we deliver.
10% distortion but only .1% of the time, could be a little tricky. Short-time FFT techniques might be of some use.
Maybe its more like there is some partial truth to both points of view; say, maybe, its not all one extreme or the other?
You hear the baby crying perfectly even when standing under a shower. Okay so now we know noise. To be honest a legitimate signal is also noise, but we discriminate between signal and noise. Rap music is definitely very high noise and we discriminate it as being noise.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.