What I can't fathom is that if the HF content in a plucked bass string is not in the freq range where hearing loss has occurred, how the attack of a plucked bass string can be perceived differently with/without HF loss?
Sorry if I'm being thick
I questioned whether this is the correct area to search for evidence of the noise floor modulation that we are talking about (the self generated noise within a DAC) - IMO this noise floor mod is probably the result of internal ground disturbance/currents created by gates firing during processing of signal. The greater the number of gates firing at any point in time, the more ground plane disturbance, the more noise floor mod being the result (this is also related to the stability under dynamic load of the power supplying the DAC)
The fades/decays are exactly where the number of gates firing are reduced & the disturbance is lessened, hence noise floor mod should be negligible.
I suspect that the xx3stksm graphs linked to by Mark would show little internal DAC disturbance if playing just the fades of the bass notes he recorded. Indeed my theory is that the difference between the PCM & DSM plots is the result of fewer gates firing in the DSM version but I'm open to being completely wrong
To my thinking - just because we can see, in a measurement, the DAC distortion down at -95Db doesn't mean that this is where it is having a perceptual effect on our auditory system - IMO, this is a measurement that shows the effect in operation but perceptually we are hearing it's effect in other parts of the sound field - my best guess being its effect at the attack & envelope portions of sounds
Last edited:
No offense intended Dan. Unlike you, I did not have the time to play with many audio toys. ScottJ is looking for the elusive "one-size-fits-all" solution. Your opinion should be beneficial should both of you have a good discussion. I am interested in design of amplifiers but not so much on other tweaks.
No I'm not. I thought you might have found one since the discussion was about recording techniques.
Ok Scott, just a slight misunderstanding.
I was saying that "upstream components has to minimize issues downstream to make a good system" in contrast to "The upstream components are in this context of little concern since they have reached the point of development where by ear, the good ones have become indistinguishable" on a reproduction system.
"I'm with Jakob, I'm more interested in better than differences".....no comprehendo, do you mean you are content to believe the opinion of others in preference to personal experience ?. What's to stop you taking a listen ?....there is at least one track that you know.
Ah, ok I missed your little joke in the first case....
Dan.
Yes, and/or your system is not fit for purpose, in your case which is it Bill ?. There are fundamental changes between the 01 and 02 files that 'Blind Freddy' would describe in a flash, this is entry level listening skills, why not give it a try and let the community know what you find. I am most interested to read your appraisal and review of the files on offer, download them and listen later, no pressure.
Dan.
No, I mean the opposite. My point is I find the discussion about differences a bit pointless when very often a difference is perceived as better when it isn't (although it can be subjectively, at least for a while, do you see what I mean?) I don't know the recording that well, as I said, I bought the CD very recently, it is also a very poor recording when all said and done, although that matters little to me when I find the music so good.
Ah, you are not appreciating the nature of the differences because you have not experienced them, your preconditioning is ahead of yourself. IMHO the 02 files are indeed improvement over the 01 originals, listen for the difference and you may agree, short term and permanently. The 03/04/06 files are deliberately coloured and may or may not suit your taste, YMMV.
I have grown to like at least some of the BG music when listening to the treated versions, the original not so much. You might also prefer one of the loopback versions. Dan.
As far as I'm in concern, I can confirm i have lose a lot of my ability to follow speech in a background of noise.
But, and this is strange, it seems that i can more easily follow an instrument in a mixage.
I have lost all the shiny trebles, but, this is strange, I'm more sensible to any excess of them in a mix. And I'm more interested and sensible to the attacks than when I was young. It is like if a curtain of parasitic noise have been removed.
Personal story: When I had over 50, I was very suspicious about my ability to provide good tonal balance of the instruments in the treeble. Always asking confirmation to youngers in the studio. It seems the contrary occurs.
Let me explain. When I was young, i had a tendency to add extrème treebles to cymbals and acoustic guitars, by example. trying to to add shine. And i was physically aggressed by the noise of the rubbing of the violin bow on the strings.
I was never fully satisfied by the sound of my cymbals, admiring secretly ihe work of some old sound engineers, asking-them, sometimes their "secrets".
Now, i enjoy the sound of violins, I add "body" to the cymbals and it seems it works better even for the youngers.
About localisation, well, i don't feel i have lose anything. At least in the center and sides. More and more sensible to the 'focus' of the center position. If something have decreased, it is may-be my ability to focus with precision between center and sides.
Very curious to read others experiences in this matter.
I'm sure of this.
On what other effects could be the differences we can feel between several DACS that all measure incredibly well ?
Last edited:
The comparison is between 01 original 24bit wave files and sets of loopback 24bit recordings. The 02 loopback recordings are using a special cable on its own. The 03/04/06 files are using the same special cable but have extra materials incorporated into the pb/rec system with consequent change in sound of loopback recordings. So, the first test is to discriminate an 01 original recording and the corresponding 02 loopback recording........that should be child's play and it is, go ahead and give it a try, you know you want to. Dan.
Hi T, my experiences pretty much mirror your experiences. Yes, when younger I wanted thumping bass and exciting treble, nowadays I want sense of power and natural clarity, and appreciate sense of space and distance in recordings. I would also say that I am nowadays more sensitive to 'wrongs' in the mix or in the replay system than when younger......this could be product of long aural experience and not tolerating wrongs when the solution is now known. My experimenting is in achieving power, clarity, warmth and body in systems and/or recordings, indeed a 'one size fits all' solution to righting the wrongs of standard audio technology. Dan.
Yes, too much is made of age related HF hearing loss. We often see stated here the very misconception that HF hearing sensitivity is needed for perception of all sorts of reported audible improvements.
Too many variables to make any firm statements about differences between auditory perception when I was younger Vs now - differences in quality of replay systems, interest in sound reproduction, experience/exposure to good sound, etc.
Last edited:
Yes, most information is contained in the mids, loss of highs does not constitute great information loss.
Dan.
The problem is in identifying what level & what type of disturbances in these areas are audible & how to then measure such disturbance when dynamic music signals are being processed. I'm pretty sure current standard measurements aren't showing differences in these areas in a manner which readily differentiates one DAC from another
Dan, are you kidding us? I did a quick check of the Jump files, comparing 2 with 3, there is a dropout at 1:23, followed by a rotated sample sequence until 2:37 where they start to match again (except for another dropout glitch at 3:25).
In the sections that are correct the diff is -70dB down, almost pure noise residual on the R channel whereas the L channel has some gain mismatch so that more of the music peaks through (pretty much undistorted, at that).
In the sections that are correct the diff is -70dB down, almost pure noise residual on the R channel whereas the L channel has some gain mismatch so that more of the music peaks through (pretty much undistorted, at that).
Ok, thanks, I forgot about the glitching, I can redo those files but it does not alter the main facts.
The other folders should be glitch free and the gains should be stable, I can check that also.
Perhaps you should listen first and you will pickup changes that your above testing does not reveal.
Dan.
The other folders should be glitch free and the gains should be stable, I can check that also.
Perhaps you should listen first and you will pickup changes that your above testing does not reveal.
Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.