[gregorio]

Thanks for the clarification, appreciated, and frankly it makes the claims possibly even more ridiculous.

You’re welcome and just for further clarification, the figure of -24dBSPL (actually -23.7dBSPL if memory serves) as the absolute limit of sound (in air) is a calculated figure. It uses some fairly involved physics/maths to calculate the number of random collisions of air molecules per second and therefore the amount of (white) noise produced. So, this figure represents the absolute lowest noise floor of a hypothetically perfectly isolated anechoic chamber with no sound other than that caused by the air molecules themselves, so any other sound would have to be higher in level than -23.7dBSPL. In practice, we’ve never measured such a low noise floor, because we can’t build a hypothetically perfect anechoic chamber. The lowest we’ve actually managed as far as I’m aware is -19.5dBSPL, measured in the early hours inside Microsoft’s anechoic chamber, which employs an extreme six shell construction to achieve such “silence”. Most anechoic chambers only employ two shell construction.

G

 

[bigshot]

I don’t think DACs that are colored are at all common. Manufacturers have more to lose by producing colored equipment than they do to gain. If word got out that their DAC isn’t performing to spec, the backlash could be huge.

 

[KinGensai]

You’re welcome and just for further clarification, the figure of -24dBSPL (actually -23.7dBSPL if memory serves) as the absolute limit of sound (in air) is a calculated figure. It uses some fairly involved physics/maths to calculate the number of random collisions of air molecules per second and therefore the amount of (white) noise produced. So, this figure represents the absolute lowest noise floor of a hypothetically perfectly isolated anechoic chamber with no sound other than that caused by the air molecules themselves, so any other sound would have to be higher in level than -23.7dBSPL. In practice, we’ve never measured such a low noise floor, because we can’t build a hypothetically perfect anechoic chamber. The lowest we’ve actually managed as far as I’m aware is -19.5dBSPL, measured in the early hours inside Microsoft’s anechoic chamber, which employs an extreme six shell construction to achieve such “silence”. Most anechoic chambers only employ two shell construction.

G

Then why is the dB SPL standard not set at this theoretical limit? I suppose it would be a change in measurement convention without a clear purpose because 20μPa is a nice clean threshold to set 0dB SPL at.

In the application of audio entertainment, we can't hear much below even 10dB SPL because of homeostatic bodily functions causing sound, so this -170dB noise floor level stuff seems rather ridiculous.

 

[gregorio]

Then why is the dB SPL standard not set at this theoretical limit? I suppose it would be a change in measurement convention without a clear purpose because 20μPa is a nice clean threshold to set 0dB SPL at.

I’m not sure the theoretical limit was known when the dB SPL standard was set, which if memory serves was about a century ago and certainly was nowhere near attainable. It was set at was was thought to be the absolute threshold of human hearing, although we now know that in perfectly optimal conditions the absolute threshold is potentially a bit lower. I believe about -8dBSPL was reliably detected by a young boy with excellent hearing in a world class anechoic chamber, using a 3kHz signal, which we now know is optimal due to the equal loudness contours. It’s a bit like the Celsius or Fahrenheit scales, they’re not set to the theoretical limit (absolute zero, 0° Kelvin) either, because it’s simply not useful in everyday human experience/practical engineering and these scales, along with many others, were set by international standards bodies/organisations for practical engineering purposes.

In the application of audio entertainment, we can't hear much below even 10dB SPL because of homeostatic bodily functions causing sound, so this -170dB noise floor level stuff seems rather ridiculous.

It’s not so much because of homeostatic bodily functions (which incidentally are much louder than 10dB but are filtered out by the brain) but because of the ambient noise floor. Most good broadcast studios have noise floors down in the 25-30dB range (some are as low as around 20dB), a 10dB noise floor is in the range for an anechoic chamber, home listening environments are more like 40dBSPL on average, although can get down to around 30dB in some cases.

As you say, -170dB is ridiculous. In fact, -120dB is ridiculous for consumer audio, although it’s not ridiculous for professional use, because it’s not uncommon that some part of a recording is raised in level during mixing by 40dB and in rare instances by 60dB, which could potentially bring converter artefacts into the audible range.

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

It's so remarkable to see all the writhing, looking consummately ridiculous as you try to attack someone who's indisputably one of the most highly-regarded experts in digital audio in the world, who knows a thousand times more about audio than all of you put together, especially when you can't disprove literally one word he says.

It's like watching 5 year-old students shoot spitballs at Einstein before they run back and hide in their church.

 

[bigshot]

This is all just an act, right?

Most people don't know this, but Colonel Sanders is one of the world's leading ornithologists.

Albert Einstein declared that his second greatest idea, after the Theory of Relativity, was to add an egg to the pot while cooking soup to make a soft boiled egg without an extra pot to wash.

And to sum up... Here is the science behind the spitball.

 

[BS5711]

It's so remarkable to see all the writhing, looking consummately ridiculous as you try to attack someone who's indisputably one of the most highly-regarded experts in digital audio in the world, who knows a thousand times more about audio than all of you put together, especially when you can't disprove literally one word he says.

It's like watching 5 year-old students shoot spitballs at Einstein before they run back and hide in their church.

FBM,

I totally understand your point and I was hesitant to contribute here because the type of rebuttal you just made was bound to happen.

However, how do you rationalise that his design ideas rely on a level of hearing ability far beyond that associated with human physiology to be able to hear the results ?

Genuine question.

You are holding Rob Watts up as all knowing, if you accept everything that he says how do you rationalise within yourself how you can make use of the apparent benefits, do you believe your hearing ability is at a level beyond scientific understanding ?

 

[bigshot]

Appeal To Authority
https://www.thoughtco.com/logical-fallacies-appeal-to-authority-250336

 

[IXOYE]

That man could as well have been a politician.

 

[gregorio]

It's so remarkable to see all the writhing, looking consummately ridiculous as you try to attack someone who's indisputably one of the most highly-regarded experts in digital audio in the world, who knows a thousand times more about audio than all of you put together, especially when you can't disprove literally one word he says.

That’s seriously impressive, how many ways is it possible to be wrong in just one single sentence?
1. I already disproved more than “one word he says”, for example the audibility of jitter, with actual quoted science, so the last part of your sentence is clearly false.
2. You still don’t get the “burden of proof” despite it being explained to you and it being highlighted on the landing page of this subforum. Again, it is not for us to disprove what “he says”, it is for him to prove or you as you are referencing him and without any such proof we are perfectly entitled to dismiss what “he says”!
3. Rob Watts is NOT “one of the most highly-regarded experts in digital audio in the world”, you just made that up! He certainly has expertise but is not “one of the most highly-regarded”, except by some audiophiles.
4. The fact I’ve just disputed your claim proves that your assertion, that he’s “indisputably one of the most most highly-regarded experts”, is in fact disputable.
5. What have his claims of audibility got to do with digital audio anyway? Audibility is a question of acoustic sound and psychoacoustics, so even if he were an expert in digital audio that’s irrelevant and according to the video you posted, he doesn’t even know what psychoacoustics is or what it studies, let alone have anything even approaching expertise!
6. As already mentioned, an “appeal to authority” is a fallacy and therefore a ridiculous argument. It’s even more ridiculous as the authority you’re appealing to is NOT an authority. And more ridiculous still as you’ve been complaining about a “complete lack of science” but yet again you yourself have provided none and instead only provided the exact opposite, a fallacy! Now that’s funny!
7. You obviously cannot know what I and others here know about audio and therefore your claim that Rob Watts knows “a thousand times more than all of you put together” is just another made-up false assertion!

There’s probably more but being wrong in 7 ways in just one sentence is a great achievement, even for an audiophile! lol

It's like watching 5 year-old students shoot spitballs at Einstein before they run back and hide in their church.

Don’t you even know who Einstein was or what he accomplished? Has Rob Watts ever published even one peer reviewed scientific paper, let alone papers that have changed our understanding of physics or won a Nobel prize. Name just one thing he’s ever contributed to science! Don’t you know that an analogy has to be analogous? lol. And, apart from you, no one here runs back and hides in their church!

G

 

[gregorio]

However, how do you rationalise that his design ideas rely on a level of hearing ability far beyond that associated with human physiology to be able to hear the results ?
Genuine question.
You are holding Rob Watts up as all knowing, if you accept everything that he says how do you rationalise within yourself how you can make use of the apparent benefits, do you believe your hearing ability is at a level beyond scientific understanding ?

And that’s the problem, audiophiles holding audiophile marketers up as “all knowing” when in fact they’re not only not “all knowing”, in many areas they are seemingly the exact opposite, pretty much as ignorant as it’s possible to be. I say “seemingly” because they (Rob Watts in this case) may actually be far more “knowing” than they’re demonstrating but are deliberately lying/misleading, thereby giving the impression of ignorance. Of course, most audiophiles are also ignorant in those “many areas” and are therefore unable to recognise the BS, all they have to go on is whether Rob Watts (and others) appears to be an authority, which of course is a requirement of a marketer, regardless of whether they actually have any real knowledge/understanding. I explain “many areas” more below by responding to an earlier post by castleofargh.

So long as he talks about electronic, digital signal, a little math, and objective variables, all is well and often interesting.

TBH, even in these areas NOT “all is well”! Sure, he certainly demonstrates some knowledge/expertise but seriously misrepresents some things, often by employing “lies of omission”. For example, it’s all very well talking about noise floor modulations down at say -300dB in the digital domain but what happens to those noise floor modulations when dither is applied (or simple rounding/truncation) at the end of the digital process, which is roughly going to be at least 150dB higher in level? And what happens to them in the analogue domain when they encounter the inevitable Johnson (thermal) noise which is at least another order of magnitude higher? Not to mention the acoustic and analogue noise floor of the recording being reproduced which is going to be another couple of orders of magnitude higher again!

The moment he starts declaring that this and that are audible(or not) while offering zero documented data or research to support the claim, how is it different from any random guy making an empty statement about his feelings of sound?

Clearly he has next to no knowledge/understanding of psychoacoustics, he doesn’t even know the subject area/s that psychoacoustics studies, but in addition, he makes quite a bit of reference to acoustic sound/instruments and recordings/mixes of them (cello, sax and piano), where he again he demonstrates little/no knowledge or understanding. For example, how is white noise “in tune with the piano” and how, as it’s supposedly lower than about -170dB (unmeasurable), can it have any effect on even a 24bit recording which only encodes signals down to roughly -144dB, not to mention that the noise floor of even the quietest studio mics is no lower than around -85dB? Forget psychoacoustics and ludicrous assertions of audibility, he doesn’t seem to know fundamental principles of noise, noise interaction, digital or analogue limitations or the basic realities of recording acoustic instruments. (Or again, he does know but is deliberately misrepresenting/lying about them).

G

 

[Whazzzup]

No one except my ears can convince me to believe anything. although info sharing or a pep talk is fine for those with brains or care

 

[FunkyBassMan]

However, how do you rationalise that his design ideas rely on a level of hearing ability far beyond that associated with human physiology to be able to hear the results ?

It's the exact question that points to the problem. You (and the usual suspects) are assuming science knows everything about human hearing.

I'm assuming the science of human hearing leaves lots to be discovered.

Genuine question.

Gotcha - taken as such.

You are holding Rob Watts up as all knowing,

Not remotely. Indeed, the very thing that makes him credible (beyond his extraordinary track record) is his doubts, which, unlike nearly every other designer/builder, he exposes to the world for critique. And more than that, he listens to critiques, admits when he makes mistakes, like with power supplies and the Dave design. He learned what a terrible problem RF traveling looping through the ground plane can be, I suspect largely from very clever owners of his product who built better power supplies. Indeed, Rob himself admitted that he learned his own product sounds better with a battery!

He's created top-caliber equipment for decades that millions of people enjoy daily. In any serious forum, that would earn him some respect among people interested in audio gear. But not here. Here people literally think they know more than he, arguably the most highly-regarded engineer in digital audio today, does. Well, he can certainly be wrong, as he himself admits daily. But to claim someone knows more than he does or that he's wrong about something involving audio reproduction, one better have some extremely serious evidence, or one will look extremely ridiculous. Which is exactly what happens here.

if you accept everything that he says how do you rationalise within yourself how you can make use of the apparent benefits, do you believe your hearing ability is at a level beyond scientific understanding ?

Of course not. But, as every real scientist will tell you, science never ends. (Except of course in the tragically named "Sound Science" forum)

 

[bigshot]

I get convinced by using what’s between my ears, but different strokes for different folks.

Here we go with the “we don’t know everything, so we can’t know anything” argument again….

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Here we go with the “we don’t know everything, so we can’t know anything” argument again….

Here we go again with the "when you can't refute someone's argument, make up crap no one said and say stuff about that."

I get convinced by using what’s between my ears,

That explains a lot, actually.