It could be, but few are interpreting and even fewer are doing the level of multiTone testing you are. And i have yet to see anyone adequately characterize what a DUT sounds like from the measures.
dave
Please stay on topic, any further comment of a personal nature and/or regarding forum moderation will be deleted, and infractions issued. If you cannot conduct the discussion in a civil manner, the thread will be closed.In addition, just a reminder that all posts without proper attributions will be deleted, you may re-post them with the attributions.
Well-done differential testing shows literally "everything". With well-done I don't mean tools like DiffMaker, that's just a toy. Most important aspects are proper sync'd averaging and any normalization that might be needed, as well as test procedures that keep the drifts of the measuring devices out of the picture (can mostly be dealt with by short-term interleaving). For some tests little effort is needed to arrive at spectacular results (like fully isolating things like channel crosstalk, parasitic microphonic pickup or effect of logic-induced jitter in an audio interface), others (like trying to measure DDR) will require a lot of thinking about the best procedure and a lot of testing that the measurement is truly valid and really has a strong correlation to what is actually heard (which must be asserted by DBT in-situ).
Now the point is that any measurement must be interpreted. This can be be done by us humans after gaining a lot of knowledge and experience (incl. DBTs) but nothing hinders us to put that knowledge and experience into a database with lot's artificial intelligence attached. So it's perfectly possible to build a machine that eg tells us that a certain preamp has more precise stereo imaging than another... which is measuring sound quality, actually.
Alas, unlike in medicine there isn't much chance that this kind of expert system will ever become reality.
Now the point is that any measurement must be interpreted. This can be be done by us humans after gaining a lot of knowledge and experience (incl. DBTs) but nothing hinders us to put that knowledge and experience into a database with lot's artificial intelligence attached. So it's perfectly possible to build a machine that eg tells us that a certain preamp has more precise stereo imaging than another... which is measuring sound quality, actually.
Alas, unlike in medicine there isn't much chance that this kind of expert system will ever become reality.
All of you who do not think that this is a complete and true problem definition really need to do a reality check.
//
Good post.
Of course it can be done, but it is not yet (if at all, not a common) reality. I’d love to see it done. I don’t have the chops to do it but have been a cheerleader for a long time.
1st a need has to be actualized and often that is means counting those who think we don’t need to — in this thread, to name names, BV and Evenharmonics stand out as examples.
dave
Of course it can be done, but it is not yet (if at all, not a common) reality. I’d love to see it done. I don’t have the chops to do it but have been a cheerleader for a long time.
1st a need has to be actualized and often that is means counting those who think we don’t need to — in this thread, to name names, BV and Evenharmonics stand out as examples.
dave
Scott Wurcer mentioned that the multitone test signal he uses sounds like an organ chord - so this is what the 30 or so pure tones sounds like when mixed with their IMD products as there will be IMD products for any playback system (all playback systems are non-linear & generate IMD products)
Just wondering if anybody has ever notched out the 30 or so tones & listened to just the IMD products alone? Of course these IMD products when played back will have new IMD products created by the playback system - gets kinda complicated.
Just wondering if anybody has ever notched out the 30 or so tones & listened to just the IMD products alone? Of course these IMD products when played back will have new IMD products created by the playback system - gets kinda complicated.
Good point. But sounds like the cat chasing its tail. But whatever you end up listening to is not going to be a pleasant experience.
I am reminded of doing some noise profiling of Mercury recordings that was digitally transferred by Wilma Cozart Fine (I gather they refurbished the original tube Westrex 3-track recorder for the job) and shaving about 6dB of tape noise off (that is enough to do safely and makes a nice improvement) and ending up with three files, the original, the file with the noise removed and finally the noise saved to a third file. Of the three, the middle one sounded best, noticeably smoother and less grainy, noticeable especially but not exclusively to strings. The extracted noise file, not nice at all. Deleted quickly!
BTW, much better than old noise-reduction technologies, noise profiling is very maths intensive when set to max quality - and yes, it takes time to do the process for every file. I did about 105 albums that way.
But no mysteries here, so all sides should be happy. 😀
Joe
I could agree with this statement "all to do with interpreting the information"
What interpretation aspects would you cite here? I already cited that the masking concept as often presented to dismiss some differences is simplistic & under under certain conditions masking is released - when the patterns of amplitude modulation cohere between masker signal & remote signal, for instance
This brings up the concept that auditory perception is very much pattern driven - I wonder if one of the questions with measurements/interpretation, are we examining patterns in the signal which are relevant to our perception?
No but due to the synchronous FFT used this is trivial, unfortunately you need the tools to do it (but they are free). Due to the break, I missed your post showing the speaker multitones. They illustrate my point, even a fairly cheap USB sound card does (in some cases) two orders of magnitude better.
If you are interested in DAC's you might want to check out Martin Mallinson's (from ESS and an old friend) youtube presentations on artifacts in DAC's. The multitone is only one tool and will not give you a final answer.
Hearing below the noise is another case where a trivial treatment of noise is used to make a point. There is a huge body of work in many fields on extracting non random signals from noise using stochastic and other techniques. LIGO was a pretty extreme example.
No one wants to trivialize the problem of taking a measurement and interpreting the results but saying we have not even started is not an accurate or useful stance.
Synchronous FFT meaning DAC & ADC working off the same clock & the tones generated with correct crest factor & frequency intervals (I presume the free tools do this?)
Yes, speaker distortion of all types is far higher than DAC distortions & yet differences between DACs can be heard, so I don't necessarily write it off
Yes, I remember Mallinson's presentation of ESS talking about some internal ESS audiophile's who could hear differences between versions of the ESS DAC that he couldn't hear but they eventually found a measurement that showed what the difference was - it really is down to motivation, energy,inquisitiveness & often money if these things are uncovered.
The same applies to ABX testing - it requires the same characteristics to do correct ABX testing
I didn't say that - we have come a long way with current measurements & perhaps the systems are now good enough that they are revealing higher order issues which were previously masked - the issues which begin to differentiate good sound from better sound.
I suspect better measurements will involve a better understanding of psychoacoustics but this requires a paradigm shift
Last edited:
"Whatever you end up listening to is not going to be a pleasant experience" Does that seem a reasonable thing to say? If it does to you, you are welcome to it, but to me it sounds like the sort of thing a marketing man would say.
Here's a solution.....
Heari: Smart headphones adjust sounds to your full potential by HeariAudio —Kickstarter
Heari: Smart headphones adjust sounds to your full potential by HeariAudio —Kickstarter
Huh? I can only think that you have gotten something out of context and then extrapolated something that I don't understand. Oh well, maybe just leave it at that. Unless some like listening to extracted IMD products or extracted tape noise.
Joe
Yes, I suspected there was a misunderstanding, thanks. I am off to a soft bed, bid you all good night.
Joe
- Status
- Not open for further replies.