[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1) The average human can hear distortion down to somewhere around -15 dB below the signal level without training in what to listen for.

This is based on that testing site that we have been point toward right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif 2) There are a certain few individuals who, whether by training or natural ability, are able to hear distortion down to -45 dB and even lower.

Again based on that testing site?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif 3) Most modern high quality amplifiers have a distortion level of 0.01% or less which is equal to a decimal level of 0.0001

Probably correct but I have some real issues with only looking at the amplifier in a whole train of components that provide their own level of distortion.

a. Distortion embedded in the CD or Record : estimated as "XX"
b. Interconnects and cables: estimated "YY"
c. Transport: estimated "ZZ"
d. DAC: estimated "AA"
e. Speaker or headphone tranducer: "BB"
f. Ear distortion based on volume level: "CC"

Since all these are independent of each other they would arthmatically sum.

Total distortion would be XX+YY+ZZ+AA+BB+CC

What level would you think this could be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif 4) If you go to this link http://www.csgnetwork.com/decibelvoltagecalc.html you will find that 0.0001 is equal to -80 dB.

I went over there and could not get the ideal of how to input 0.0001 and get a result.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif 5) The difference between -50 dB and -80 dB is 30 dB. If you go to this link http://www.daycounter.com/Calculator...lculator.phtml you will find that 30 dB is equal to a voltage gain of 31.6.

I think total distortion would be much more than what you are assuming in this presentation. Much higher toward the range where it would be noticeable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hope that you can draw your own conclusions.

And if you ask for a detail conclusion you want you are essentially asking for a face slap.

 

[mdarnton]

An interesting study that may bear on the path this discussion has taken: http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=406

I particularly like the Bertrand Russell quote.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif And you know this how?

I don't expect you to take my word for it, but just let it suffice I have spent enough years working with audio, that I have first hand knowledge of what I'm saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Take the test, let us know how good your ears are.

I know nothing of the conditions of this test. Why should I subject myself to a test in which the conditions are completely unknown? The results would be at best, meaningless.

... I just took the test using my Apple MacBook Pro and its internal speakers. With that equipment, I was able to easily hear this completely unqualified "distortion" to a -18db level. What does this "test" prove? There are far to few conditions stated for this to be meaningful.

 

[SysteX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif Probably correct but I have some real issues with only looking at the amplifier in a whole train of components that provide their own level of distortion. a. Distortion embedded in the CD or Record : estimated as "XX" b. Interconnects and cables: estimated "YY" c. Transport: estimated "ZZ" d. DAC: estimated "AA" e. Speaker or headphone tranducer: "BB" f. Ear distortion based on volume level: "CC" Since all these are independent of each other they would arthmatically sum. Total distortion would be XX+YY+ZZ+AA+BB+CC

Exactly. This is a perfect example of a linear regression. It is a model that describes the state of a dependent variable over time (in our case "total distortion") as a function of several independent variables (transport distortion, dac distortion, transducer distortion, etc.)

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SysteX /img/forum/go_quote.gif Exactly. This is a perfect example of a linear regression. It is a model that describes the state of a dependent variable over time (in our case "total distortion") as a function of several independent variables (transport distortion, dac distortion, transducer distortion, etc.)

Not only would they arithmatically sum, to the ear, they would potentially mutually obfuscate one another as well.

 

[Hi-Finthen]

Speaking of measurements as science as it relates to audio , isn't it true that two different opamps can measure the same, yet sound different when replaced in a given amp socket in that type of amps topology ??? They should sound the same, given their measurements...

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Speaking of measurements as science as it relates to audio , isn't it true that two different opamps can measure the same, yet sound different when replaced in a given amp socket in that type of amps topology ??? They should sound the same, given their measurements...

Do we even know specifically everything that needs to be measured that the human ear/brain system can discern? Subtle phase anomalies, FR deviations as little as 0.1db, and the like have been proven to be audible by some ears. I suspect there are some things which we haven't even qualified yet that affect the final audible product of a recording/reproduction chain.

 

[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do we even know specifically everything that needs to be measured that the human ear/brain system can discern? Subtle phase anomalies, FR deviations as little as 0.1db, and the like have been proven to be audible by some ears. I suspect there are some things which we haven't even qualified yet that affect the final audible product of a recording/reproduction chain.

I have notice that stress and blood pressure puts me into hearing things differently.

I have also ask the question about the differences between transducers (read headphones) of the same model and manufacturer. How much is the delta in performance between them. What is the sigma tail like?

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdarnton /img/forum/go_quote.gif An interesting study that may bear on the path this discussion has taken: http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=406 I particularly like the Bertrand Russell quote.

I'm kind of fond of Bertrand Russell myself.

It would be illuminating to know at whom you are aiming that particular website.

I found this bit interesting: Quote:

One possible corollary to these conclusions is Scott Adams' Dilbert Principle, which tells us that the most ineffective workers are systematically promoted into management. Perhaps those doing the promoting are incompetent, and therefore fail to recognize the incompetence in those they reward.

I'm a big Dilbert fan and use Scott Adams' cartoon as an example quite a lot.

The researchers seem to be saying that we live in Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon


My father was about one step away from being a mathematical genius and he had a saying that he was quite fond of.

Quote:

"He that knows not and knows that he knows not is a child, teach him. He that knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool, shun him. He that knows and knows not that he knows is asleep, wake him. He that knows and knows that he knows is a teacher, follow him." - Persian Proverb

I never knew where it came from until I looked it up just a moment ago.

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is based on that testing site that we have been point toward right? Again based on that testing site?

If you have better data then by all means post it.



Quote:

Probably correct but I have some real issues with only looking at the amplifier in a whole train of components that provide their own level of distortion. a. Distortion embedded in the CD or Record : estimated as "XX" b. Interconnects and cables: estimated "YY" c. Transport: estimated "ZZ" d. DAC: estimated "AA" e. Speaker or headphone tranducer: "BB" f. Ear distortion based on volume level: "CC" Since all these are independent of each other they would arthmatically sum. Total distortion would be XX+YY+ZZ+AA+BB+CC What level would you think this could be?

Given that the distortion in the transducer is almost certainly above one percent then obviously the total distortion will be greater than that.



Quote:

I went over there and could not get the ideal of how to input 0.0001 and get a result.

Enter 0.0001 under Voltage Gain and click on Calculate.



Quote:

I think total distortion would be much more than what you are assuming in this presentation. Much higher toward the range where it would be noticeable. And if you ask for a detail conclusion you want you are essentially asking for a face slap.

I'm not writing a doctoral dissertation, this is a post to an enthusiast forum.

If I make BOTE calculations, no one else has even done that.

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do we even know specifically everything that needs to be measured that the human ear/brain system can discern? Subtle phase anomalies, FR deviations as little as 0.1db, and the like have been proven to be audible by some ears. I suspect there are some things which we haven't even qualified yet that affect the final audible product of a recording/reproduction chain.

It is quite certain that we do not know everything about the ear/brain and how it perceives sound.

All of the phase anomalies and FR deviations of which you speak are present in transducers to a far greater extent than in the electronics which drive those transducers.

 

[Hi-Finthen]

You are certainly adapt at the fond useage of this term "fool", V.P....

Even to remember your father having said it to you many times as in an ancient proverb... Good memory!

Perhaps that maybe why you seem to need to prove others the fools, perhaps ?

In conclusion, as with a system, each of the components when together will dictate what is heard; Similarly then, to pick apart only one measurement (distortion) and by your analysis, to try to draw a conclusion as you seem to be saying, is a fools errand !

 

[greggf]

Vinyl sez:


"You may shout if you wish, the fact remains that double blind testing is an effective way to separate reality from imagination."


Most of what Vinyl is calling "reality" IS imagination, however!

"Imagination" is not an inferior realm. I know a lot of you here are threatened by imagination, probably because you can't see it, measure it, or, most importantly, control it. And control is all-important to people for whom the imagination is inaccessible or distant.

I hear differences between amplifiers. If that's my imagination, good. That makes me powerful. It makes me a shaper of my own world, of my own "reality." And of other worlds as well - see my profile. It makes me a passionate human being. It makes life worth living, it gives life contours and nuances, it inserts magic and mystery into what would otherwise be simply a "meat machine" body.

In other words, imagination is what makes people human. It's soul.

I daresay that the bottom line is, when you get right down to it, envy. Envy of those who possess imagination and, quite frankly, envy of those who possess more money or credit.

Vinyl has sadistically started a thread in which he tries, in a sterile academic manner, to justify or prove, defensively, his lack of imagination and either his lack of finances or else his innate tightwaddedness. He wants us to experience life as flatly as he does.

Meanwhile, some of us have wine, women, and song.

Those of you who are young need to take a long look at what you want to be at 60 years old. Do you want to be exciting, complex, attractive, passionate? Or a bean counter, an accountant, an old fart in a white lab coat, somebody as obsessed in your old age with taking tests as you were in middle school?

Meawhile, I'm powerful. I can make tubes sound warm and transistors sound cold, even beyond the fact that they do in subtle ways. I can make silver faceplates sound detailed and copper cable sound euphonic. I can imagine that my cat loves me, the winter wind is warm, and that death is not the final chapter.

I am music.

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are certainly adapt at the fond useage of this term "fool", V.P.... Even to remember your father having said it to you many times as in an ancient proverb... Good memory! Perhaps that maybe why you seem to need to prove others the fools, perhaps ? In conclusion, as with a system, each of the components when together will dictate what is heard; Similarly then, to pick apart only one measurement (distortion) and by your analysis, to try to draw a conclusion as you seem to be saying, is a fools errand !

I don't think I have used the term "fool" before in this thread.

If I have then I would appreciate you pointing it out to me.

You do not remember what your parents said to you many times?

 

[TheVinylRipper]

And then there is Vernor Vinge and the technological singularity.

http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html

Quote:

What is The Singularity? The acceleration of technological progress has been the central feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence. There are several means by which science may achieve this breakthrough (and this is another reason for having confidence that the event will occur): * There may be developed computers that are "awake" and superhumanly intelligent. (To date, there has been much controversy as to whether we can create human equivalence in a machine. But if the answer is "yes, we can", then there is little doubt that beings more intelligent can be constructed shortly thereafter.) * Large computer networks (and their associated users) may "wake up" as a superhumanly intelligent entity. * Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent. * Biological science may provide means to improve natural human intellect. The first three possibilities depend in large part on improvements in computer hardware. Progress in computer hardware has followed an amazingly steady curve in the last few decades [17]. Based largely on this trend, I believe that the creation of greater than human intelligence will occur during the next thirty years. (Charles Platt [20] has pointed out that AI enthusiasts have been making claims like this for the last thirty years. Just so I'm not guilty of a relative-time ambiguity, let me more specific: I'll be surprised if this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030.)

Vinge is both a scientist and a science fiction author.