Apodizing filter

Oct 5, 2024 at 5:39 AM Post #286 of 426
I’d show you what a typical response curve in headphones looks like above 15kHz, but it would be a complete waste of time.
i know what they look like .... -10-20db at 20khz with your usual harman curve, tho its the harman curve because you perceive 20khz still like on speaker, even tho they are down 20db or so... because the driver sits directly at your ear, why i have to explain this to you?
 
Oct 5, 2024 at 8:51 AM Post #287 of 426
i know what they look like .... -10-20db at 20khz with your usual harman curve, tho its the harman curve because you perceive 20khz still like on speaker, even tho they are down 20db or so... because the driver sits directly at your ear, why i have to explain this to you?
Explain this to him?

Have you ever measured the impulse response of a transducer to find out the frequency response with FFT? I have. It is not pretty looking what you have above 10 kHz (even with the highest performance gear). When you see frequency responses published, those are practically always smoothed (1/3 octave or 1/6 octave typically) responses, because that's how our ears perceive sound. The real responses are wild! Knowing this stuff makes you understand how insignificant the frequency response error of slow roll off filters are, but instead of being interested to learn from us, you insist staying in your Dunning-Kruger mode trying to "explain" things to people who know much more than you do.
 
Oct 5, 2024 at 9:06 AM Post #288 of 426
Have you ever measured the impulse response of a transducer to find out the frequency response with FFT? I have. It is not pretty looking what you have above 10 kHz (even with the highest performance gear). When you see frequency responses published, those are practically always smoothed (1/3 octave or 1/6 octave typically) responses, because that's how our ears perceive sound. The real responses are wild! Knowing this stuff makes you understand how insignificant the frequency response error of slow roll off filters are, but instead of being interested to learn from us, you insist staying in your Dunning-Kruger mode trying to "explain" things to people who know much more than you do.
its another thing to have
A. not perfect impulse response because of "naturally" occouring errors, we are used to from our day to day life
B. have a NOT naturally impulse response that basicly affects "consistently in a bad way" a good portion of the overall sound/frequency spectrum

you are free to see this differently but it just makes sense, atleast for me...

tho for me also absolute phase (specially under 1-2khz) is crucial and others complain it cant be heared xD it is what it is i guess
sure errors exist, but you can be 10 degree off OR 190 degree....
 
Last edited:
Oct 5, 2024 at 10:39 AM Post #289 of 426
its another thing to have
A. not perfect impulse response because of "naturally" occouring errors, we are used to from our day to day life
B. have a NOT naturally impulse response that basicly affects "consistently in a bad way" a good portion of the overall sound/frequency spectrum

you are free to see this differently but it just makes sense, atleast for me...

tho for me also absolute phase (specially under 1-2khz) is crucial and others complain it cant be heared xD it is what it is i guess
sure errors exist, but you can be 10 degree off OR 190 degree....
C. Continuing to listen with our eyes and misinterpret visuals from impulse responses to figure out how thing sound. Usually the most intuitive false conclusion becomes that no filter or very weak filtering increases accuracy because the response looks more like a Dirac pulse.
I’m so fed up with those intuitive BS conclusions from impulse responses.

Ringing is the mathematically accurate result of a brickwalled signal. Which is what we want for accurate reconstruction of already band limited digital recording. Treating the signal as a sum of sines, and the impulse as an infinite sum of sines, the best band limiting will look like ringing. It’s not a fault, and it certainly isn’t how music sounds.
If you use some massive EQ in the bass with a filter that gives pre ringing, then you can end up hearing a sort of pre echo before the impact of the bass. That sure is weird and undesirable.
But repeat the same at higher frequencies and the audible impact rapidly becomes smaller and smaller. To me it stops being noticeable well before I reach the treble.
If I was paranoid about that anyway, because it’s the one sound I can actuallly correlate with impulse ringing, I guess I would get a DAC filter that is minimum phase and be done. But I don’t even manage to care because audibility falls down so much, plus the music content is tens of dB below FS even before filtering, and my own sensitivity add another tens of dB at those freqs. I can’t convince myself to care.
Now if you use various filters on a DAC, several might be audibly different(and not just because your eyes tell you to hear a difference like you usually do). But AFAIK, it’s because they allow obvious crap as optional setting. Either the amplitude difference is at frequencies we can still hear, or an absurd amount of crap aliased back into the audible range, or in case some high energy ultrasounds remains, sometimes it could be IMD or some amp oscillating like mad.
Proving the audibility of bad choices was never hard. Does it mean we should care about filters? Is the main reason to care, the fact that we get to select between many crap settings beside one or 2 common sense settings? It’s so inconsequential that many people still manage to convince themselves that inferior fidelity is higher fidelity.

The most typical filters turn out to be the ones that avoid those bad side effects.It’s almost as if engineers had figured it out before audiophile marketing started to try reinventing the wheel...
Of course engineers are also focused on stuff like money and computational power, which also tend to lead to close enough results whith conservative solutions, because while you can throw money at this and use more processing than crypto, the extra improvement follows a strong diminishing return where audibility rapidly gets unlikely, then impossible(and I sure don’t enjoy waiting 3 seconds anytime I press "play" or "next" on my player anyway).

About apodizing/windowing, I remember some paper suggesting it could be interesting in the studios. I think there was some reason to discourage double use. It was a while back and as usual the math rapidly went over my head. It was already with some of the Meridian people so IDK what it’s worth(did they coin apodizing for audio?). Maybe they had not yet considered making way more money from selling that stuff in their DACs. It’s frustrating how many clever and skilled people they had and worked with, and how often they still decided to BS their way into marketing.
 
Oct 5, 2024 at 1:18 PM Post #290 of 426
im unsure if linear phase filters are similar to minimum phase in this regard
It all depends on how you program them.
but to give an example: a minimum phase low pass at 20khz alters phase way below 20khz (probably starting at 15khz or even lower), probably the same thing happens with pre/post ringing
imo thats why its audible .....
Firstly, it’s not the same thing that happens with pre/post ringing. A minimum phase filter does not have any pre-ringing but it has more post ringing. Secondly, a minimum phase filter does affect phase and typically at some freq above 10kHz but of course you cannot state “that’s why it’s audible” because human hearing is not very sensitive to phase even in the most sensitive regions of hearing, while in the high-mid and high freqs it is insensitive. So, you would have a rational case for stating the opposite of your assertion, that “it’s inaudible” but not for “it’s audible”, unless you have some very robust, reliable evidence!
i know what a -0,5db point at 20-22khz sound like, also audible but this is not what makes filter "sound nasty", its subpar transient or phase response
Of course you don’t know what a 0.5dB point at 20-22kHz sounds like, that’s an absurd claim. A tiny difference of 0.5dB is difficult enough to discern where our hearing is at it’s most sensitive (~3kHz) but discerning it in the ultrasonic range, where by definition we can’t hear anything, even big differences, is just a ludicrous claim that even a school child should be knowledgeable enough to realise!
its the harman curve because you perceive 20khz still like on speaker, even tho they are down 20db or so... because the driver sits directly at your ear, why i have to explain this to you?
You have to explain it to us for the same reason you would have to explain why the earth is flat or why 1 + 1 = 5, IE. It’s such utter BS that anyone in their right mind is going to need some explanation for why anyone would believe such ridiculous nonsense!
It was already with some of the Meridian people so IDK what it’s worth (did they coin apodizing for audio?).
While apodizing filters were already widely used, no one called them apodizing, they were just filters or minimum/linear phase filters. It was our old friend Bob Stuart at Meridian who started calling them apodizing and as you say, it was pure marketing. Introducing the term “apodizing” made it sound like some new invention that was different to other filters.

G
 
Oct 5, 2024 at 3:26 PM Post #291 of 426
Mr Ghoost,

If you continue to theorise about something then listen to see if your theory is right it always will be, but only to you.

Psychology is at work heavily with you and you are not aware of it.

It is so apparent even based only on reading your comments here that everyone else can see it.

Perhaps it is time to put some energy into understanding psychology and perception.
 
Oct 5, 2024 at 3:35 PM Post #292 of 426
Perhaps it is time to put some energy into understanding psychology

I think he should consult a professional on that.

There is definitely psychology going on in this group. There are obviously very knowledgeable people participating here. Weak minded people see that and dearly want to be respected by them as a peer. As soon as they say something wrong and get corrected, they feel small. They become a “spurned lover” and go on the attack, never backing down. I don’t know if this particular forum attracts them or if it’s just a thing with Internet forums in general… but I do know that people like this hold back this forum from reaching its full potential. I doubt that they would get away with acting like this in real life. We seem to be the only outlet for their frustrations. This is not normal behavior.
 
Last edited:
Oct 5, 2024 at 11:54 PM Post #293 of 426
Psychology is at work heavily with you and you are not aware of it.
I think he should consult a professional on that.

its far more dilusional to think every audiophile is a slave of his placebo because you guys cant discern it with your own ears

we had this talk before, if you wanna theorise about placebo and what not start with how being only objective works pretty much the same way as a good old subjective placebo

like i know what mp3 vs flac, recontruction filters, 0,5db at 20khz (eq 0,1db at 15khz or so) sound like, yet you guys keep wanna make the claim you know better than me, i mean keep thinking that but everyone with two working ears can verify this for themself ;)
 
Oct 6, 2024 at 3:02 AM Post #294 of 426
its far more dilusional to think every audiophile is a slave of his placebo because you guys cant discern it with your own ears
How is it delusional to think that audiophiles suffer from placebo just like all other humans? What’s truly delusional is believing that audiophiles are not humans, that they’re somehow super-human. While “us guys can’t discern it with our own ears” because it’s inaudible to human adults and unlike you, we’re all human adults.
we had this talk before, if you wanna theorise about placebo and what not start with how being only objective works pretty much the same way as a good old subjective placebo
Firstly, we did “had this talk before” and unfortunately you learned nothing and stuck to the “I’m a super-human audiophile” nonsense! Secondly, we don’t have to “theorise about placebo” it’s been well studied for over a decade and is why double blind testing was invented in the first place! And lastly, how on earth do you get to the nonsense assertion that “objective works pretty much the same way as good old subjective placebo”? Why do you think DBT was invented, you think that maybe some scientists got bored one day, decided to make testing more difficult just for the fun of it and all other scientists just jumped on the bandwagon because scientists never test things and have no interest in methodology or accurate data? Don’t you even know what science is or what scientists do? Would you be happy taking medicines that had not been through various rigorous phases of DBT? If so, I’ve got a range of snake oil, homeopathy and other useless BS just looking for a dumb sucker who doesn’t know or believe that snake oil was debunked over a century ago and to anyone with even basic education is nothing more than a joke!
like i know what mp3 vs flac, recontruction filters, 0,5db at 20khz (eq 0,1db at 15khz or so) sound like, yet you guys keep wanna make the claim you know better than me, i mean keep thinking that but everyone with two working ears can verify this for themself :wink:
Yes, “us guys keep wanna make the claim” which assumes you’re human and therefore that you cannot hear 0.5dB at 20kHz (or 0.1dB at 15kHz) and we’re going to keep repeating it because science established that fact well over a century ago and no one, including super-human audiophiles have ever provided any reliable evidence to the contrary. And Yes, “everyone with two working ears” and half a brain could verify this for themselves but you refuse to, you just keep making up BS assertions instead of verifying it. This indicates you do not meet the required conditions, IE. Either you don’t have two working ears or you don’t have half a brain, or both!

G
 
Last edited:
Oct 6, 2024 at 3:26 AM Post #295 of 426
I admit, I don’t know what -0.5 at 20-22 kHz sounds like because I can’t hear it. Neither can you.
 
Oct 6, 2024 at 3:28 AM Post #296 of 426
Firstly, we did “had this talk before” and unfortunately you learned nothing and stuck to the “I’m a super-human audiophile” nonsense! Secondly, we don’t have to “theorise about placebo” it’s been well studied for over a decade and is why double blind testing was invented in the first place! And lastly, how on earth do you get to the nonsense assertion that “objective works pretty much the same way as good old subjective placebo”? Why do you think DBT was invented, you think that maybe some scientists got bored one day, decided to make testing more difficult just for the fun of it and all other scientists just jumped on the bandwagon because scientists never test things and have no interest in methodology or accurate data? Don’t you even know what science is or what scientists do? Would you be happy taking medicines that had not been through various phases of DBT? If so, I’ve got a range of snake oil, homeopathy and other useless BS just looking for a dumb sucker who doesn’t know or believe that snake oil was debunked over a century ago and to anyone with even basic education is nothing more than a joke!
like you said yourself, no one is save by (occousional) placebo and its a thing, even for objectivist who read objective studys on how is something audible, like you suggest "audiophools" always suffer from reading marketing, its just the other way around for objectivists in my book, and some people not aknowledging this fact is plain up stupid even if DBT trys to compensate "some" biases, its not flawless tho you guys can keep believing that

I admit, I don’t know what -0.5 at 20-22 kHz sounds like because I can’t hear it. Neither can you.
you are entitled to your own opinion :)
 
Oct 6, 2024 at 4:39 AM Post #297 of 426
its far more dilusional to think every audiophile is a slave of his placebo because you guys cant discern it with your own ears

we had this talk before, if you wanna theorise about placebo and what not start with how being only objective works pretty much the same way as a good old subjective placebo

like i know what mp3 vs flac, recontruction filters, 0,5db at 20khz (eq 0,1db at 15khz or so) sound like, yet you guys keep wanna make the claim you know better than me, i mean keep thinking that but everyone with two working ears can verify this for themself :wink:
Would you believe me if I say I can fly? Of course not! What you claim to be able to do is something humans are not able to do. However human are influenced by placebo which does explain easily your claims. That's why we don't believe you. You need to prove us you are a genetic freak or superhuman for us to believe you.
 
Oct 6, 2024 at 4:51 AM Post #298 of 426
like you said yourself, no one is save by (occousional) placebo and its a thing, even for objectivist who read objective studys on how is something audible
That’s right, that’s why we have double blind testing and studies and “yes” even us objectivists need to do DBTs on occasion because we are human and subject to placebo and cognitive biases just like everyone else.
like you suggest "audiophools" always suffer from reading marketing, its just the other way around for objectivists in my book
Firstly, you don’t have a book and even if you did, it would be useless because it wouldn’t contain any verified facts. The actual fact, that you’ve demonstrated you are going to avoid at any cost, is that it’s not “just the other way around”. How long have you been posting here? And after all that time you still don’t know what verifiable, published, peer reviewed scientific studies are, what they’re for or the difference between them and marketing? That’s astonishing, as even school children who’ve never even frequented a science discussion forum should know what scientific studies are! Thanks for proving my point! Not to mention, even if scientific studies were no more factually accurate than marketing, still it wouldn’t be “just the other way around” because unlike audiophiles, us objectivists have done and/or actually do objective testing ourselves!
and some people not aknowledging this fact is plain up stupid
Again, you have that backwards; as explained above, what you’ve claimed is NOT a fact, it’s just some BS you’ve invented which contradicts the actual facts that even school children or an adult with half a brain should know. If we were to acknowledge your BS as fact, we would indeed have to be “plain up stupid”!
even if DBT trys to compensate "some" biases, its not flawless tho you guys can keep believing that
Oh good, two fallacious arguments in just one sentence, impressive, you’ve outdone yourself! First of all, we have your old favourite strawman argument fallacy (because us guys do not believe DBTs are flawless) and secondly, you’ve also gone for the Nirvana/“Perfect Solution” Fallacy. Even though DBTs can be flawed, well designed ones do indeed eliminate most of the more pernicious biases (such as placebo). The alternative of course is sighted testing which does not eliminate any of the pernicious biases, in fact it actually encourages them. Modern cars, aircraft and ships are also “not flawless”, so do you reject all of them as well, and just get by with a donkey? In fact pretty much all technology is flawed to some degree, so do you live in a mud hut in the pre-stone age?

Your response to being called out for your ridiculous BS is to make even more ridiculous arguments! Lol

G
 
Last edited:
Oct 6, 2024 at 5:17 AM Post #299 of 426
you are entitled to your own opinion :)
And this is the most simple part that even a child should understand but that you don’t, even after it has been explained to you numerous times! How is that anything other than “just plain stupid”? To explain it to you yet again: “Yes” he is entitled to his opinion as are you. For example, bigshot is entitled to the opinion that the earth is spherical and that 1+1=2, while you’re entitled to the opinion that the earth is flat and that 1+1=5 but your equal entitlement to an opinion is obviously NOT relevant to whether your assertions are actually true or have equal standing/value! The huge difference is that the established science/facts support bigshot’s opinion but contradicts yours, not only in these two examples but also in the opinion you’re asserting of hearing things that are inaudible to humans!

Do you have any facts at all, or only a never ending stream of “just plain stupid” fallacies?

G
 
Oct 6, 2024 at 5:18 AM Post #300 of 426
I wish I thought this was just another troll, but he’s so intellectually lazy and oblivious, I’m afraid it’s real. Either that or he gets off on being insulted.

The number of words I think it’s worth expending on answering him is shrinking fast.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top