Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Blind test: 6 DACs compared
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blind test: 6 DACs compared - Page 10  

post #136 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by skamp View Post

I don't know where this is supposed to be going, since no-one is claiming that 16 bit quantization noise is audible.

 

I think it's going into the file marked: "This sounds like bollocks to me. If you can propose an experiment to show that you are correct then I'll listen. Otherwise - don't call us, we'll call you."  Short of the guy providing that experiment you've already answered well enough.


Edited by scuttle - 2/7/13 at 9:39am
post #137 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by skamp View Post

I don't know where this is supposed to be going, since no-one is claiming that 16 bit quantization noise is audible.

 

I simply pointed it out that the samples do not have 24-bit resolution, responding to this post, without making any claims regarding audibility.

post #138 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucky-X View Post

Hi Skamp,

 

Here you see the harmonic structure of the overtones that are generated during reproduction. Note that those overtones are well below the quantization of a 16 bit recording.

 

You are talking about two things here, harmonics that are associated with fundamentals of musical tones are a different kettle of fish from harmonic distortion. as you know if you play a note such as a note on a trumpet you'll get loads of harmonic energy (some actually above the fundamental) well within the audible spectrum descending in energy eventually as the frequency of the harmonic increases. You want to capture the audible harmonics and you'll get it down to about -96db with a bog-standard 16 bit ADC. Most of the very high harmonics though will be utterly inaudible as they both occupy an area of low sensitivity (the ear is most sensitive between 2K and 5K above 5K sensitivity declines markedly) and are at very low levels as well and masking takes care of harmonics that are close to other frequencies but substantially lower in energy. 

 

Whenever an instrument, a voice or a DAC (as in your case) is recorded, the harmonic content falls below the quantisation (not to any level of significance - see above) , that means it is NOT on the recording. Therefore your recordings do not show much the audio quality of the DACs.(harmonics 50db on the fundamental or so down are afaik inaudible so irrelevant let alone harmonics 100db down - when you apply a filter at 20K all you are removing are harmonics (unless you are using synthesizers) and even instruments that have harmonics extending to 100Khz are not audibly affected by filtering off these high harmonics. There were experiments way back in the 70s (JVC researchers did this) that confirmed this and aside from the very dodgy Oohashi paper nobody seriously (excepting James Boyk) claims that these harmonics are in any way an issue   At least they don't show everything there is. 

 

 

 

You make that anti-jitter thingy don't you ?

 

Out of interest have you done any controlled blind listening tests on the effect of your anti-jitter thingy. I ask as jitter in most competent is already at extremely low levels and to date there has been no serious evidence to suggest that jitter in pretty much any half-decent (excluding the McIntosh music server and Zanden DAC) digital component reaches audibility. Of course anecdotes abound  but good empirical evidence for jitter audibility in day to day experience seems absent...I've been researching this for many years and neither manufacturers nor serious audio bodies such as AES, BBC, NHK and so on have found jitter to be any kind of problem but perhaps you have done some testing, if so it would be really interesting to hear about it !


Edited by nick_charles - 2/7/13 at 10:15am
post #139 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post

 

 

You make that anti-jitter thingy don't you ?

 

Out of interest have you done any controlled blind listening tests on the effect of your anti-jitter thingy. I ask as jitter in most competent is already at extremely low levels and to date there has been no serious evidence to suggest that jitter in pretty much any half-decent (excluding the McIntosh music server and Zanden DAC) digital component reaches audibility. Of course anecdotes abound  but good empirical evidence for jitter audibility in day to day experience seems absent...I've been researching this for many years and neither manufacturers nor serious audio bodies such as AES, BBC, NHK and so on have found jitter to be any kind of problem but perhaps you have done some testing, if so it would be really interesting to hear about it !

This is a guy who believes that if you put spruce speaker cabinets in your room then the acoustics of the whole room improves. Always. 

 

 

Quote:

http://www.mother-of-tone.com/speakersystem.htm

 

The material for the housing is spruce wood, which is a beautiful and full sounding wood. Just to have those speaker in your room, everything will sound better because of the treated spruce wood, the whole room acoustics improves.

 

That's telling the laws of physics!

post #140 of 176

Room acoustics always change with speakers in them. It's measurable.

post #141 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

Room acoustics always change with speakers in them. It's measurable.

 

Of course they do. But whether they will change for better or worse depends on factors like the room dimensions and the size of the speakers and where  you bloody put the things! There's no such thing as an object that will improve the acoustics of any room regardless of where you put  it.

post #142 of 176

so when does the answer key show up? they sure sounded pretty much the same to me except for D which sounds a bit more lifelike/pleasant

post #143 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelostMIDrange View Post

so when does the answer key show up? they sure sounded pretty much the same to me except for D which sounds a bit more lifelike/pleasant

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skamp View Post
 
I will reveal which is which a month from now, on February 28, 2013, in a downloadable text file.
post #144 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelostMIDrange View Post

so when does the answer key show up? they sure sounded pretty much the same to me except for D which sounds a bit more lifelike/pleasant

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Not a bad guess to choose D as the best. normal_smile%20.gif

 

 Now you can also try these and these, but use an ABX comparator since the solution is already revealed.

post #145 of 176

stv, are you in on the facts. I'm in need of a dac and would be interested in a PM as to which one D is ! I swear on my first dog 'muffin' s grave to keep it to myself. A month is a long time.....thanks !

post #146 of 176

One of the seven option is the original.  Everything else was subjected to a D/A, A/D, and minor processing for volume normalization, if I understand things correctly.  If one option were to be the best, it should probably be the original.

 

Did you try any blinded comparison yet?

post #147 of 176

so maybe the 'dac' I liked was not even a dac. dammit, how can i buy a nonexistent product!

post #148 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

One of the seven option is the original.  Everything else was subjected to a D/A, A/D, and minor processing for volume normalization, if I understand things correctly.  If one option were to be the best, it should probably be the original.


Did you try any blinded comparison yet?

I did an ABX test in Foobar between C and G and I could hear a difference. To me C sounds more natural-sounding but maybe that's a bad thing.

If time permits, I'll try C versus D in addition to C versus A.
post #149 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post


I did an ABX test in Foobar between C and G and I could hear a difference. To me C sounds more natural-sounding but maybe that's a bad thing.

If time permits, I'll try C versus D in addition to C versus A.

 

How many correct out of how many trials ?

 

EDIT 13/16 - sorry I missed that earlier - 13/16 p = 0.011 (we reject the null hypothesis)


Edited by nick_charles - 2/9/13 at 1:53pm
post #150 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

I did an ABX test in Foobar between C and G and I could hear a difference. To me C sounds more natural-sounding but maybe that's a bad thing.


If time permits, I'll try C versus D in addition to C versus A.

How many correct out of how many trials ?

I'm not sure how this post will turn out since I'm on a mobile device at the moment but it was from the previous page:


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.18
2013/02/04 01:44:35

File A: C:\Users\Michael\Desktop\C.flac
File B: C:\Users\Michael\Desktop\G.flac

01:44:35 : Test started.
01:47:23 : 00/01 100.0%
01:47:33 : 01/02 75.0%
01:47:40 : 02/03 50.0%
01:48:11 : 03/04 31.3%
01:48:27 : 04/05 18.8%
01:49:05 : 05/06 10.9%
01:49:19 : 05/07 22.7%
01:49:56 : 05/08 36.3%
01:50:24 : 06/09 25.4%
01:50:46 : 07/10 17.2%
01:51:03 : 08/11 11.3%
01:51:11 : 09/12 7.3%
01:51:39 : 10/13 4.6%
01:51:54 : 11/14 2.9%
01:52:11 : 12/15 1.8%
01:52:40 : 13/16 1.1%
01:52:47 : Test finished.

Total: 13/16 (1.1%)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Blind test: 6 DACs compared