Is that flat to 40kHz? Wouldn't 80kHz give more accurate reproduction?
-2dB at 20kHz typical, I think the 1/4" mics are too noisy. I guess recording engineers have their own posses Harvey Gerst thinks the B&K mics are too analytical and dry.
Last edited:
I don't see how the highs give a sense of space (depth?) isn't that due to reverberation mainly?
From one of the references given in the Boyk paper - a 2001 Thesis by Daniel Cheever
"A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY
POWER AMPLIFIER TESTING BASED ON PSYCHOACOUSTIC
DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY"
Although this paper is concerned with the effects of feedback on amplifiers, there are other ways that noise modulation is created in playback systems & is subjectively perceived as a flattening of the sound, less dynamic, less aliveness, less naturalness.
Again, as mentioned in that extract, it's the processing involved in auditory perception that reveals this - no measurement is currently capable of doing so
"A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY
POWER AMPLIFIER TESTING BASED ON PSYCHOACOUSTIC
DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY"
Although this paper is concerned with the effects of feedback on amplifiers, there are other ways that noise modulation is created in playback systems & is subjectively perceived as a flattening of the sound, less dynamic, less aliveness, less naturalness.
Again, as mentioned in that extract, it's the processing involved in auditory perception that reveals this - no measurement is currently capable of doing so
Last edited:
Funny that Stradivarius quote given that there was a test done where, when blindfolded Violinists couldn't tell a strad from a cheapy either.
As for 'no measurement is capable' we can measure things a lot more complex than a violin. I think it might be very much more accurate to say 'no one can be arsed to work out how to measure'
As for 'no measurement is capable' we can measure things a lot more complex than a violin. I think it might be very much more accurate to say 'no one can be arsed to work out how to measure'
I just did a search on here & see Cheever's thesis was referenced before - some supporting it & some criticizing it.
I'm not so much interested in the global feedback Vs no feedback debate - more interested in what he & Boyk identify as noise modulation & its perceptual effects on audio playback. They both concur with my own perception of what I believe removal of noise modulation results in - as I said before a more believable sound with realistic perceived dynamics. One thing that I didn't read in either paper was a solidity to the soundstage & solidity to individual instruments/voices in that soundstage. There are good explanations for this that are hinted at in Cheevers paper
Again, I have not seen any determined & successful effort at measuring noise modulation in dynamic signal playback - I would welcome correction if I'm mistaken about this
I'm not so much interested in the global feedback Vs no feedback debate - more interested in what he & Boyk identify as noise modulation & its perceptual effects on audio playback. They both concur with my own perception of what I believe removal of noise modulation results in - as I said before a more believable sound with realistic perceived dynamics. One thing that I didn't read in either paper was a solidity to the soundstage & solidity to individual instruments/voices in that soundstage. There are good explanations for this that are hinted at in Cheevers paper
Again, I have not seen any determined & successful effort at measuring noise modulation in dynamic signal playback - I would welcome correction if I'm mistaken about this
Last edited:
Yea, I seem to remember they not only blindfolded the violinists but used a hotel room, disguised any possible hints of smell with perfume & some other time restrictions - an assault on the senses & introduction of stress in time & room & other stuff I can't remember - an obvious way NOT to do a perceptual test
They know nothing about perceptual testing, as per usual
Yes, I accept your correction but would change it slightly to remove the pejorative "can be arsed" to "no measurements have yet been devised to measure noise modulation in music signal playback"
Once one has decided something is unmeasurable then any response can be deemed... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siAkfXf1TQc
That's a reasonable hypothesis, I once thought the multi-tone test would be more telling but I have seen several loop-backs that show virtually no noise floor at any level. I know there is enough computing power now to generate some more interesting test waveforms with FFT filtered real music. I should be back on line early in the new year if all goes well.
No this was the 2012 Paris test, you are referring to the 2010 Indianapolis test.
No, the sort of people who could do this generally cannot be arsed. There are more interesting things to be measured, like gravitational waves, and which way antimatter moves in a gravitational field. Real Science and Engineering. Audio doesn't trouble the greatest minds much.
Most of those who measure audio stuff have a vested interest in not finding this out. People who could measure it (like Bruce Hofer) haven't been paid to work out the test.
Yes, I thought multitone would be closer to reveal noise modulation but it doesn't address the modulation aspect which requires some dynamic changing of the signal - I wonder has a dynamic multitone ever been done - maybe amplitude modulating each tone while keeping the overall crest factor unchanged?
What do you intend by "FFT filtered real music"?
I would take some dynamic music and remove narrow groups of bins, not sure yet how wide or how many or if linear or log spacing is best. You should be able to preserve the crest factor and dynamics but have these places where nothing should show up. It's easy today to just take a full 20 or 30 second cut of music at 96kHz and do a one shot filter so the empty bins are really empty and have no mathematical leakage. This is just a thought experiment that is easy to do, not sure if it would show anything interesting or how to interpret it.
I would like to publicly brag that I predicted Waly would get banned: my prediction was mode on 06 May 2016: LINK
In that delightful thread, Waly VERY CONFIDENTLY proclaims that MOSFET gm is not equal to dIds/dVgs . Brave and stupid at the same time. Technical management in my part of the world (Silicon Valley) often describes people with this personality defect, as follows:
Often wrong, but never in doubt.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.