We do have the answers, but shortsideness by many causes them ignore the effects that they'll happily accept as being a factor in other areas, other fields. Because the measurement tools aren't readily at hand, to instantly point to an electrical change taking place, corresponding an audible effect, the easiest, and lazy approach is to simply assert that it's in people's heads ...
Also the environment noise is very critical. In a big city, noise from vehicles is very serious at daylight. Machinaries in industrial area may be worse.
There is plenty of scientific data ... it just isnt presented in a way that fills out your Form the way you like it.
When a whole lot of people - over a long time period - and who are strangers to one another... all describe a CFA and VFA topology (unknown to them) in the same descriptive terms --- that is also real data.
We had the same kind of 'data' about the listening of tube vs ss amps... soft, hard, loose,tight etc etc etc. The same qualities described by many many people over time all across the planet. Eventually, we found harmonic levels and patterns which explained this listening 'data'.
Thx-RNMarsh
When a whole lot of people - over a long time period - and who are strangers to one another... all describe a CFA and VFA topology (unknown to them) in the same descriptive terms --- that is also real data.
We had the same kind of 'data' about the listening of tube vs ss amps... soft, hard, loose,tight etc etc etc. The same qualities described by many many people over time all across the planet. Eventually, we found harmonic levels and patterns which explained this listening 'data'.
Thx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Cite? Even just one actual paper?
No, that's not even close to "real data." That's the same "real data" used to support alien abductions and anal probing.
Everyone knows systems sound different for all sorts of reasons, the argument is really about why they sound different. Some point to simple explanations, others realise that it's all very complicated.
My own experiences have told me that absolutely everything matters, every change could change the perceived sound, but that raises a great dilemma - what is the real sound, how do I know when I've got it?
The answer, for me, is not to worry about whether it is "the real thing", but rather concern myself with whether it delivers the same emotional impact as listening to live music - that, I reckon, is good enough!! And, it's plenty hard enough to get to that level, without also stressing myself with concerns about whether it's 'correct' to someone's standard, or intent.
It's not, "Let there be light!", but, "Let there be music!!" ...
My own experiences have told me that absolutely everything matters, every change could change the perceived sound, but that raises a great dilemma - what is the real sound, how do I know when I've got it?
The answer, for me, is not to worry about whether it is "the real thing", but rather concern myself with whether it delivers the same emotional impact as listening to live music - that, I reckon, is good enough!! And, it's plenty hard enough to get to that level, without also stressing myself with concerns about whether it's 'correct' to someone's standard, or intent.
It's not, "Let there be light!", but, "Let there be music!!" ...
Why Not Prove It Through ABX - VFA vs CFA
Stop talking about inaudibility of things if you have no interest in setting up this test I'm proposing.
Pick any CFA amp. Pick any VFA amp with NFB. Reduce the output with resistor and feed to an ADC and record them. Choose any VFA that you think is similar in sound with the CFA, or similar in output response.
Make 3 sets of files with different music/songs. And 3 steps of test are:
1) ABX any of the 3 sets with Foobar to get 10/10.
2) Get consistency of which is which from the 3 sets.
3) Specify which one is the CFA.
Expected conclusion on passing each test:
1) Test #1 suggest that it is difficult to find two amps (eg CFA and VFA) that sound the same.
2) Test #2 suggests that there is a unique differences between CFA and VFA (remember that the song is different in the 3 sets).
3) Test #3 suggests that certain traits attributed to CFA do exist.
For me, I can hear unique sound character from any CFA I have heard, so why not in this test?
Stop talking about inaudibility of things if you have no interest in setting up this test I'm proposing.
Pick any CFA amp. Pick any VFA amp with NFB. Reduce the output with resistor and feed to an ADC and record them. Choose any VFA that you think is similar in sound with the CFA, or similar in output response.
Make 3 sets of files with different music/songs. And 3 steps of test are:
1) ABX any of the 3 sets with Foobar to get 10/10.
2) Get consistency of which is which from the 3 sets.
3) Specify which one is the CFA.
Expected conclusion on passing each test:
1) Test #1 suggest that it is difficult to find two amps (eg CFA and VFA) that sound the same.
2) Test #2 suggests that there is a unique differences between CFA and VFA (remember that the song is different in the 3 sets).
3) Test #3 suggests that certain traits attributed to CFA do exist.
For me, I can hear unique sound character from any CFA I have heard, so why not in this test?
Happy new year.
It's like when long time ago I heard the character of latfet, when no ampliers using them were good enough. Bipolar amps did sound better overall (proven by all listeners Prefered my bipolar leach than my latfet amp) but I believed that once a good latfet amp is designed that will be perfect.
CFA character can be said "life like" but not really, depends on perspective. Tonally I tend to find it "wrong". Just like how tube amps sound like real but upon closer listening it doesn't have to be.
I prefer CFA trait because I think it is independent of the other traits. I mean, you can have that trait while having the other good traits from non CFA. But i think it is not true that CFA amps sound better than VFA amps. But to find the best I will go the CFA way.
Studies by AES - thresholds of audibility
I just want to see these AES studies. If you misquoted the figures, there's nothing shameful about admitting you made a mistake.
If you've got a moment, could you dig up these links? They might not be AES studies but advertising blurb from manufacturers. That's OK too.
I'm really interested in this cos it was one of the first things that struck me when listening to a really jitter free sine wave compared to lesser Sine generators; .. not the low THD but the lack of jitter.
Anyone know more? What I've dug up is confirmed by jcx and Benjamin & Gannon.
Mr. Marsh, I'm not arguing over the levels of detectable jitter.
I just want to see these AES studies. If you misquoted the figures, there's nothing shameful about admitting you made a mistake.
If you've got a moment, could you dig up these links? They might not be AES studies but advertising blurb from manufacturers. That's OK too.
I'm really interested in this cos it was one of the first things that struck me when listening to a really jitter free sine wave compared to lesser Sine generators; .. not the low THD but the lack of jitter.
Anyone know more? What I've dug up is confirmed by jcx and Benjamin & Gannon.
Bit Perfect Jitter -
Hi KGRLEE,
For you, OK. Start here and then open everything in it and read it as well. Lots of different kinds/sources of jitter.
www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/BitperfectJitter.htm
Its a wee bit more detailed than the one-liner in my comment re T&M for CFA. [which has not been addressed, still.] SY isnt allowed to read it though. If he does, watch him...He might hurt himself.
Enjoy --- RNMarsh
Hi KGRLEE,
For you, OK. Start here and then open everything in it and read it as well. Lots of different kinds/sources of jitter.
www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/BitperfectJitter.htm
Its a wee bit more detailed than the one-liner in my comment re T&M for CFA. [which has not been addressed, still.] SY isnt allowed to read it though. If he does, watch him...He might hurt himself.
Enjoy --- RNMarsh
Last edited:
The link seems case sensitive
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/BitPerfectJitter.htm
Loadsa good references there but in effect only 3 listening tests.
B&G sorta confirm BBC74.
Dis beach bum needs to beg the AES Conference paper to see what's behind the 20ps claims for 20kHz jitter .. but that would be a pretty poor DAC cos the 'noise' errors of most PLL are much smaller at HF. Also the spectrum of 'real life' or even artificial music. We'll see.
There's also some seriously dodgy listening tests too including test signals at Nyquist
The NWavGuy and Audio Precision articles are probably the most balanced views though they aren't about listening tests .. just what should be sensible to achieve.
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/BitPerfectJitter.htm
Loadsa good references there but in effect only 3 listening tests.
- Benjamin & Gannon
- BBC 1974 by Manso (not our manso by any chance?)
- Julian Dunn's `Considerations for Interfacing Digital Audio Equipment to the Standards AES3, AES5, AES11' Published in `Images of Audio', the Proceedings of the 10th International AES Conference, London, September 1991
B&G sorta confirm BBC74.
Dis beach bum needs to beg the AES Conference paper to see what's behind the 20ps claims for 20kHz jitter .. but that would be a pretty poor DAC cos the 'noise' errors of most PLL are much smaller at HF. Also the spectrum of 'real life' or even artificial music. We'll see.
There's also some seriously dodgy listening tests too including test signals at Nyquist
The NWavGuy and Audio Precision articles are probably the most balanced views though they aren't about listening tests .. just what should be sensible to achieve.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.