If you are waiting for someone else to tell you what you can or cant hear.... well, it could be another 10 years. How about just learning to listen for yourself and see what your system and you are capable of?
Novel idea, I know.
THx-RNMarsh
I'm not surprised. And this HF is distorsion as I see it because it's not information - it's a repetion of something from the base-band. Probably why digital has at times a bad reputation. It's a design flaw that actually do violate the theorem and results in poor sound.
//
Like science, but then we get into the tests with no peeking etc. Jakob has posted the ITU spec for conducting perceptual listening tests, care to participate?
I keep saying I'm interested in the technicalities, yes, of hearing obviously, connected with what is required etc...that's why I look forward to actual conclusive studies.
So what are we lacking, one more result to make five?
Does Matt’s ‘I hear no difference’ count as one?
Does Matt’s ‘I hear no difference’ count as one?
Well Good if all you are doing is skimming for something to reinforce your world view anyway...
Sure, why not? Tomorrow I can dig out my headphone amp and Senn headphones. See where my ADC/DAC is at.
I will find out what I can do now at 73.5 yrs. But, to have a broader appeal, maybe a gang of ear tested and approved hearing of some 20-somethings will be more bester. Where's/whats the test?
THx-Richard
Last edited:
This is a serious question. Phase shift is phase shift, whatever the source of it in the audio chain. Phase shifts can be fully corrected in the electrical domain, for example by using FIR filters, even if the source is the loudspeaker. Phase shifts caused by brick wall filters can also be corrected electronically, as we have seen in some recent posts from SW and the Rifa modules. Phase shift is phase shift.
Distortion is much more of an individual. Each harmonic has not just amplitude, but also phase. Even in electronic devices, distortion profiles change as levels change, stuff heats up, etc. There is an interesting thread about software corrections to eradicate distortions on DIYA which just shows how involved this is. It can be done, but for one particular level, one particular frequency and for the duration of a particular timeframe, but not in a generalized way. It won't work for audio as matters stand now.
Loudspeaker distortion is even more complicated and erratic than electronic distortion. As an electromechanical system, there are complex interactions that may lead to chaotic outcomes. Through MFB some distortions may be reduced at the lower frequencies, but other than that, it's a jumble. No working distortion correction piece of electronics has ever been designed for loudspeakers afaik.
In short, if phase shifts bother you, go ahead and correct them.
This does not work for distortion, it cannot be corrected. In addition, each subsequent layer of distortion creates higher harmonics. The second harmonic from your amp effectively becomes a fourth harmonic after your loudspeaker adds it own second harmonic. Since higher harmonics are much more audible, the lower the stage in the audio chain an audio component has, the lower its distortion should be.
But, since you ear stops coding for phase at 3.500 Hz or so, it is all completely irrelevant anyways when we discuss 5 degrees at 20 kHz. The human body has no pick up mechanism that decodes for phase at such high frequencies.
It was a BSEE thesis, which is typically a sort of senior project. There was not much more than the content of some instruments has content beyond 22.05K, this has been well known for a long time.
It would have had some useful initial transient information had it been formatted differently. One set of graphs leaps out as a microphone problem.
My annoyance is they didn't say what sort of instrument. 'Guitar' covers a multitude of instruments.
My annoyance is they didn't say what sort of instrument. 'Guitar' covers a multitude of instruments.
QA400
Thanks Richard...unfortunately I had done a search through there already and zero results. Ah well, it does a fine job for FR and THD analysis...
Cheers,
Howie
Thanks Richard...unfortunately I had done a search through there already and zero results. Ah well, it does a fine job for FR and THD analysis...
Cheers,
Howie
Its something to talk about. What part do you have issues with?
I thought the freq response/BW was one of the take aways.
no?
-RNM
Last edited:
Howie - "I despise the processing done on commercial radio. Grrr %$@&#$%@$%"
I believe it's happening on internet streams also. Digital should be transparent; unsure why anyone would have to eq and compress it for delivery.
scott wurcer - "and I have off air cassettes to prove it".
Remembering the "Kaleidoscope Show" from WRPI; "The show that asks the musical question - are you playing with a full deck?" All that with "No Commercial Potential" :') goes below 92 -
I believe it's happening on internet streams also. Digital should be transparent; unsure why anyone would have to eq and compress it for delivery.
scott wurcer - "and I have off air cassettes to prove it".
Remembering the "Kaleidoscope Show" from WRPI; "The show that asks the musical question - are you playing with a full deck?" All that with "No Commercial Potential" :') goes below 92 -
The Gras 1/2" spectrograms look iffy. As if the mic was being horrendously overloaded for a start.