That, to me, is a balanced view & one I would adapt myself about any claims made which I was somewhat sceptical about.
Yes, I don't think he has stated anything about listening but his main statement at the outset was that if the his analogue measurements showed no differences then there were no audible differences - everything else is boogaboo. This is fairly categorical.
It wasn't my analogy but Fran's which I thought very pertinent.
John
Why don't you take my advice and assemble some test equipment and perform the tests yourself?
It won't be any more difficult than setting up a computer audio system.
It will give you an independent check of your own auditory impressions.
It will go a long way towards getting you the respect of people who routinely perform such testing on their own experimental modifications. It is a far superior methodology to uncontrolled solo listening.
It will go a long way towards getting you my respect, although you may not value this.
It will enhance your self-respect.
w
Why don't you take my advice and assemble some test equipment and perform the tests yourself?
It won't be any more difficult than setting up a computer audio system.
It will give you an independent check of your own auditory impressions.
It will go a long way towards getting you the respect of people who routinely perform such testing on their own experimental modifications. It is a far superior methodology to uncontrolled solo listening.
It will go a long way towards getting you my respect, although you may not value this.
It will enhance your self-respect.
w
It's pertinent the day you offer controlled listening test data like we do in the wine industry. I agree with Fran that this would be desirable, however it might not be beneficial to your business, so I'm not surprised that you've dismissed it out of hand.
@Waki
I'm surprised that I'm actually agreeing with you for once - I'll certainly begin to assemble something that I can try this with but as you can see from this thread there are a lot of issues to be resolved in getting a valid test & I reckon that this may take me some time to achieve the knowledge & equipment necessary to do valid tests. However, your suggestion is appreciated.
@SY
I didn't reject the idea of controlled listening tests & in fact suggested just that to Fran earlier today. Sorry to disappoint your low opinion of me & your continued attempt to use the commercial argument as a goading mechanism is uncalled for. At this stage you must feel sorry for having taken this on, which I can understand but I didn't force this on you. I'm sorry that it has turned sour for you & will be taking it off your hands shortly once I can organise somebody to post it to.
I'm surprised that I'm actually agreeing with you for once - I'll certainly begin to assemble something that I can try this with but as you can see from this thread there are a lot of issues to be resolved in getting a valid test & I reckon that this may take me some time to achieve the knowledge & equipment necessary to do valid tests. However, your suggestion is appreciated.
@SY
I didn't reject the idea of controlled listening tests & in fact suggested just that to Fran earlier today. Sorry to disappoint your low opinion of me & your continued attempt to use the commercial argument as a goading mechanism is uncalled for. At this stage you must feel sorry for having taken this on, which I can understand but I didn't force this on you. I'm sorry that it has turned sour for you & will be taking it off your hands shortly once I can organise somebody to post it to.
Last edited:
@ jkeny
Correct..no DAC. It's in my budget for next year since it's something I need to have in my arsenal.
Correct..no DAC. It's in my budget for next year since it's something I need to have in my arsenal.
I disagree. So far none of the objectors has shown a "better" test that reveals jitter were SY's does not. Not one single example. None. Why is this so hard?
There is much talk about the tests not being good enough, but no counter examples, nothing to say "look, here is a test that shows audible jitter lower than your noise floor -or finer than your FFT."
Why not? Come on guys, it's easy to talk theory, were are the actual tests? Shut me up, please!
Let's get it straight then is what's being said here is that two systems whose FFTs measure exactly the same will sound exactly the same?
Yes the measurements being capable is agreed but what do you mean by all else being equal?
Do you have any documented evidence for this being demonstrated in blind testing? For any kind of audible difference demonstrated in blind testing but not revealed by instrumentation?
w
Where are the measurements being taken? Are the upstream and downstream devices identical? Are the DUTs identical in how they load the upstream and downstream devices? Oddly enough, are the weather conditions the same at the time of the tests? Are the output devices (speakers, headphones, whatever) capable of resolving any difference? Are the people listening capable of resolving a difference?
THere are many many many variables that COULD (maybe) have an effect on the sonic outcome despite the DUT's measuring the same.
Psychology? How about Neuroscience ?
Does our brain break down a perceived soundwave into different frequencies with an internal FFT neural network ? I haven't read that paper but it seems all the EE's here have 🙂
If its not picked up by a $100 sound card it is just psychology, yep perception and even consciousness have been formulated into a cartesian model.
You went there first, not I.
Hi,
What is so hard? I referenced stereophile measurements that show an FFT noisefloor in line with theory and that show jitter. Joseph K posted several FFT's of his own, that illustrate what can be measured with an inexpensive PC based test setup.
So, multiple tests are shown that do much better than Sy's and show jitter.
How can you then insist there are no better tests? You can ignore things as much as you like and stick your head in the sand of course, your perogative.
If you know anything about the use and limitations of FFT analysis (BTW, FFT = Fast Fourier Transform) you would simply look at the noisefloor and the line-width for signal (and harmonics) in the measurement Sy has posted and conclude that the confidence level for this test setup is around 13 Bit equivalent. This means it can measure only the grossest problems with any confidence.
This is simply the way this stuff works.
If you try to measure differences that are fractions of a millimeter yet you only have a Yardstick marked in Inches down to only quarter inch increments you would not be able to observe the very real difference and you would justly be scolded for not using a micrometer screw.
Simple as that.
I fail to see where your problem is?
Ciao T
What is so hard? I referenced stereophile measurements that show an FFT noisefloor in line with theory and that show jitter. Joseph K posted several FFT's of his own, that illustrate what can be measured with an inexpensive PC based test setup.
So, multiple tests are shown that do much better than Sy's and show jitter.
How can you then insist there are no better tests? You can ignore things as much as you like and stick your head in the sand of course, your perogative.
If you know anything about the use and limitations of FFT analysis (BTW, FFT = Fast Fourier Transform) you would simply look at the noisefloor and the line-width for signal (and harmonics) in the measurement Sy has posted and conclude that the confidence level for this test setup is around 13 Bit equivalent. This means it can measure only the grossest problems with any confidence.
This is simply the way this stuff works.
If you try to measure differences that are fractions of a millimeter yet you only have a Yardstick marked in Inches down to only quarter inch increments you would not be able to observe the very real difference and you would justly be scolded for not using a micrometer screw.
Simple as that.
I fail to see where your problem is?
Ciao T
- Status
- Not open for further replies.