[Ghoostknight]

Whenever I see a nice even bell curve, but all the way at the "good" end there are suddenly a handful of outliers at the very end of the chart, I suspect people are cheating the test. Cheaters never seem to throw in one or two misses to make it look honest. They have to make it look like 10 out of 10. Just something I've learned about human nature in sound science...

just repeated the test because i wanted to test if it was "luck" (which is the only option here, but i guess you keep saying i cheated because it doesnt fit in your world view)

i actually failed two times around -40 to -50dB .... then i closed the windows and raised volume a bit... (i done the previous test at 4Am at night...)

this is the result of the third try, it definitely was harder than a few hours ago where i did it first try

 

[Ghoostknight]

just repeated the test because i wanted to test if it was "luck" (which is the only option here, but i guess you keep saying i cheated because it doesnt fit in your world view)

i actually failed two times around -40 to -50dB .... then i closed the windows and raised volume a bit... (i done the previous test at 4Am at night...)

this is the result, it definitely was harder than a few hours ago where i did it first try

if you know a topology where i couldnt possibly cheat let me know... pretty confident, tho the try now showed me that a one off is definitely the wrong way to go, just because i fail once doesnt mean i fail each time..

tho serious question now... how much you reach with the two tone test, is it for you more audible too than music samples?

 

[Doltonius]

This is an impractical question given how frequency responses are mostly measured with sine sweeps that most tools will make an impulse response out of(and CSD or whatever else, BTW). That makes it unlikely that you acquired FR without also getting the IR.
To be clear, while they are an expression of the same thing in freq and time domains, they do not fully define a transducer! Some non-linear stuff are left out.

If I extract the FR I measured into frequency samples, I have frequency, amplitude, and phase in that data.

When talking about IEMs as being minimum-phase, we implicitly make the assumption that they are linear and ignore the non-linearity, and we discuss the audibility of non-linearity separately, as people are doing now in this thread. In that case, FR and IR should contain exactly the same amount of information about the system.

 

[Doltonius]

I think the whole picture is this.
The way most people measure frequency response on IEMs, i.e., with a sine wave sweep across the spectrum, should give you just the magnitude response, i.e., doesn't contain phase information.
However, because IEMs are assumed to be minimum-phase, the magnitude response determines the phase response via the Hilbert Transform.
Then, combining these two together, we have the frequency response, which is magnitude + phase information for all the frequencies.
Then with Inverse Fourier Transform we can then recover the impulse response.

Because the step from magnitude to frequency response is assumed to be completely deterministic (via minimum-phase-ness), the magnitude response itself would have contained all the information to recover both the frequency response and the impulse response. And that is why the way data is presented nowadays, i.e., with a graph representing just the relationship between frequency and magnitude, i.e., the magnitude response, is sufficiently informative.

 

[bigshot]

Self administered tests are for personal curiosity, they aren’t for convincing others. But it’s possible your test was wrong without you realizing it. You asked how you could hear distortion at a level below the minimum volume level of your playback. Good question! I think it’s pretty obvious something is wrong there. Ya think?

That bit about 10 out of 10 is interesting, isn’t it?

 

[Ghoostknight]

Self administered tests are for personal curiosity, they aren’t for convincing others.

hmm sure i believe what i heared, you dont have to, in your position with your background i would think the same
but in my position i actually KNOW you are wrong and i havent cheated, so thats that

You asked how you could hear distortion at a level below the minimum volume level of your playback. Good question! I think it’s pretty obvious something is wrong there. Ya think?

So what IS wrong here? my guess is that the talk about audibility treshhold is just a bunch of bollocks but whats your guess? how i was able to hear -69db (TWICE...) with 60-80dB volume ? (if we put the accoused cheating beside...)

just to double check.... my dB meter shows 78dB at the listening position, i just checked the same two tone test with the same volume as before..

 

[bigshot]

I already told you my guess.

It’s ok. This is just an Internet forum. Castle’s quote on assertions apply.

 

[Ghoostknight]

I already told you my guess.

wrong guess

thats why i edited:

(if we put the accoused cheating beside...)

 

[Ghoostknight]

seriously, so the audible treshold is bollocks is the only other explanation? just so i know for my selfadmistered test

 

[bigshot]

Throw in a few more misses. Maybe that will convince me.

I already said that self administered tests aren’t going to convince others.

 

[Ghoostknight]

well, watch my second result in post 226, maybe i just faked the misses so it looks more convenient!

seriously, i dont wanna get in a verbal fight again, i guess i will just make my own conclusion then...

tho its kinda sad, funny,depressing and probably a few more at the same time when i think about this situation im in here again, probably best to just stay far away from the science forum

 

[bigshot]

Yes

 

[Ghoostknight]

Yes

Good luck over here

 

[gregorio]

since we are in the sound science forum i guess everything below -60db is inaudible anyway?

Is that some sort of alternate universe sound science forum? This sound science forum has never made that assertion! When listening at a reasonable level to music recordings, then -60dB is a reasonable rough generalisation as an audibility threshold (for details/elements within the music) but that absolutely does NOT mean everything below -60dB is inaudible or anything above that level is audible. Under certain very rare conditions, -80dB might be audible and under others, even a 0dB (full scale) detail/element can be inaudible.

ah this one just got me -15dB ... the chapman song got me -21dB .... all tests were first try for this year
i rememember getting something like -30-40db a while back on the music samples

So you didn’t achieve anything near the -60dB level, you seem to be arguing against yourself!

imo this definitely shows how complex the whole topic is... and i guess it proofs the point of objectivists saying that music can "mask" lower level details

It is somewhat complex but it’s hardly new, the general nature of auditory masking was known about 85 years ago! So, what “this definitely shows” is simply that you either don’t know or don’t understand the proven/demonstrated facts.

Tho, the objectivists need to explain now how i was able to hear -69db distortion with a volume of maybe 60-70db

If the volume was 60dBSPL then obviously the distortion would have been at -9dBSPL. The explanation, assuming you’re a human adult, is that you were not able to hear it and therefore either: You just thought you heard it and made a lucky guess, the volume was a great deal higher than 60dBSPL or you cheated some other way.

You seem to have been having a discussion with yourself over the last few pages and bizarrely, disproving your own assertions, apparently without realising it?!

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

Is that some sort of alternate universe sound science forum? This sound science forum has never made that assertion! When listening at a reasonable level to music recordings, then -60dB is a reasonable rough generalisation as an audibility threshold (for details/elements within the music) but that absolutely does NOT mean everything below -60dB is inaudible or anything above that level is audible. Under certain very rare conditions, -80dB might be audible and under others, even a 0dB (full scale) detail/element can be inaudible.

im speaking about "normal" volume levels.... dont try to hide the fact you guys advertise all the time "oh its just audible then and then" i personally dont care for the exact value
but i guess we are in the science forum AND ONLY FACTS get told around here!

So you didn’t achieve anything near the -60dB level, you seem to be arguing against yourself!

how is reaching in a test -69db and showing some other test testing at -21dB not proofing the fact that i reached -69dB in the one test, what stupid arguments are this?

It is somewhat complex but it’s hardly new, the general nature of auditory masking was known about 85 years ago! So, what “this definitely shows” is simply that you either don’t know or don’t understand the proven/demonstrated facts.

yea i take it as a fact that music can mask details, tho the both music samples are fairly bad picked imo and its highly dependent on the source material.... what about that one songs that plays a sinustone? these generalization do more harm than good IMO ... but this is my unscientific, troll, non-fact speaking, cheating opinion

If the volume was 60dBSPL then obviously the distortion would have been at -9dBSPL. The explanation, assuming you’re a human adult, is that you were not able to hear it and therefore either: You just thought you heard it and made a lucky guess, the volume was a great deal higher than 60dBSPL or you cheated some other way.

well lets take the 78dB i actually measured with the last test, lets take the FACT alright? i think it was around 70db for the first test then

Well how you explain that i got lucky twice? how often do i need to do it? i guess as long i get it right...

tho the test is no true double blind test with the way it works, for example... in the last test -69db just got tested once, thats fairly easy to get lucky... but twice UP TO -69db?
tho i admit... as i go above -50db it definitely is a subtle change... but not undetectable... as my second tried showed i actually had to close windows and turn the volume up to be more confident... (and the turned up volume was 78dB... sinustones are not that pleasent to listen to you know so there is no point in assuming i have listen with 100db unless im deff)

You seem to have been having a discussion with yourself over the last few pages and bizarrely, disproving your own assertions, apparently without realising it?!

i havent disproving anything just because you think that music masks most details doesnt mean we cant hear a difference with the right source material..... i can give you hundreds of albums to mask details... do you want those?

And now enough, this will be also my last post to you gregorio, im sick of arguing with you both, keep your crappy worldview and i keep mine while apparently learning something new everyday