It seems like a really bad idea. Especially if you have to listen to music with that going on.
But its quite clever as it doesnt show up in standard test procedures for S/N.
-RNM
Just as PMA pointed out in the quote below.
Does the same apply to subjective listening tests such as the one you and RNMarsh did when you went over to his place to listen to an upgraded DAC earlier this year?
Who gets to determine that, someone with qualification on other people's level of expertise?
Ah the Scott I have come to know and love. Pretty sure he has a clue who I am. Of course you can always ask him. Do you need his email?
One standard test that would show issue's with noise is the -60 dB dynamic range test with a tone looking for thd+n.
The same applies. If you are doing a scientific study. We were not.
We agreed about the character of the sound as we heard it. Thats all we said.
If a tone control sets highs boosted and i listen and say it sounds bright. Is that scientific study?
Its just what we heard and described it. And we both agreed on what was heard and its character.
-RNMarsh
Did he offend you by saying something like you can't make a 1nV amplifier with a 1K source impedance? People have a lot of distractions in a public forum, I'm sure he had no intention of offending your intelligence.
I wonder if you both agree that it's something both of you've got it wrong because there is a tendency of it.
No. Not even an issue in the particular item.
BTY at the AD room the fellow I spoke to was unfamiliar with you or your work.
Stereophile Carver challenge is a known published article show that some people, even with a certain bias, are genuinely able to hear a non difference on a sighted test. Perhaps it is a matter of skill. It is nice if a training program or a somewhat structured guideline exist so that more people (who are willing and in command of adequate means) can learn how to become more able to do so.
It's a losing effort unless humans can control the subconscious. If able, it wouldn't be called subconscious. But it would be a
Not surprising, IME if you walk around at those things and ask folks, "What has more thermal noise a 1W 1k resistor or a 1/4W 1k resistor?" they will pick one or the other.
As we often need both in a typical controlled listening experiment, means people who are able to detect "equality" and "difference" it isn't that easy.
There were some who tried to use so-called "placebo trials" (means presenting consecutively the same stimulus) to find those who detect the "equality" as a prescreen procedure, but they still didn't know if this group would be the best to detect differences, which leads again to the case of mandatory positive controls.
It is a matter of skills (and most likely wrt human abilities, it is a matter of talent too), one has to learn to listen for perceptual evaluation purposes and that requires often a lot of training (might be that some natural talents are out there) which includes extended listening to the same music samples again and again, but even more important to learn to listen and to be aware only of the emotional response while excluding any further analytical thinking, which will be used only at the next step.
So, listening in a state of awareness is generally a good start.
Btw, humans generally are not better in detecting "equality" under "blind test conditions", that's what the scientific evidence shows.
Last edited:
The idea came from the dither process and some perceptual thinking I'd guess and at a first glance it seems to be a good idea.
As one usually needs to use dither (which adds noise) the idea to "shape" the frequency distribution - while keeping the average power of the noise constant - in a way that it is more located in a frequency region where the human ear is less sensitive, looks appealing.
So, the ideal dither/noise shaping process would completely decorrelate the quantizer noise from the audio signal and further remove more of the noise from the midrange and everything done without any audible deterioration.
Thats what happens in the production domain.
The usual delta-sigma converters (and the DSD process ) uses in addition their own noise shaping to compensate for the low bit effects while converting the signal. (leaving aside all the details)
The observed difference between the "no signal" conditions and the "signal present" conditions in the audio band would not harm, as it is probably just due to a mute function of the DAC circuitry. That means every signal that evokes the mute release would/should show the same noise spectrum.
In reality it seems to be different, as we know that some kind of noise modulation (not totally indepent from the signal content) occurs.
But no such screening procedure is needed for subjective audio electronics review posters online and magazines, right?
I'd imagine it's even harder when there is a doubt as to what is meant by ""equality"" and ""difference"".
And it should be doubly noted much of the ostensible hi-res music has tons of noise shaped dither in its creation.
Jakob2--I'm on holiday not terribly far from your lovely country, so my response will be delayed. I imagine we agree more than disagree on how the sausage of discovery is made but I am wholesale distrusting of anecdotes on an internet forum, especially ones that make sensational claims with excuses that what they hear is immeasurable, and posters with a history of credulity. I like blinded experiments, coming from something of a medical/engineering background, but soberly conducted unblinded work is far better than anything we get from this forum. (For perceptual work) And certainly has its value for the listener's sake, whether it's a real effect or perceived. But these observations have poor translation to another user.
Jakob2--I'm on holiday not terribly far from your lovely country, so my response will be delayed. I imagine we agree more than disagree on how the sausage of discovery is made but I am wholesale distrusting of anecdotes on an internet forum, especially ones that make sensational claims with excuses that what they hear is immeasurable, and posters with a history of credulity. I like blinded experiments, coming from something of a medical/engineering background, but soberly conducted unblinded work is far better than anything we get from this forum. (For perceptual work) And certainly has its value for the listener's sake, whether it's a real effect or perceived. But these observations have poor translation to another user.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.