[bigshot]

For those wondering how much distortion they can hear, take the Klippel test:

https://www.klippel.de/listeningtest/?v=3

Thanks for that! I'll check it out. Do they have published results of a wide group of test subjects?

 

[A Jedi]

Thanks for that! I'll check it out. Do they have published results of a wide group of test subjects?

It's been a couple of years since I took it and I don't remember if they gave that. But on that other site (the one from the first post), people have shared their results. Search for something like "how much distortion can you hear".

As for the measurements and visualizations they're presenting, the gentleman doing the measurements does this for a living. He tests with all sorts of equipment under various conditions in a quiet lab (yes, an actual lab). If you look through other threads, he shows pictures of and specifies all the equipment used for measurement, loads etc.

The thread I pointed you guys to is just in its infant stages. The data and visualizations and whatnot will be refined and made better.

 

[bigshot]

Cool. That should be useful. I'd suggest extending your scale to reach audible thresholds and create a "black box" to represent where distortion might start becoming audible. The author of that page you linked to might be helpful in setting up parameters for that.

 

[danadam]

Thanks for that! I'll check it out. Do they have published results of a wide group of test subjects?

At the end of the test they show how your result stacks up against others who took the test before.

 

[sander99]

Do they have published results of a wide group of test subjects?

I did the test and (as danadam just now wrote) at the end they showed results of others and me:

 

[danadam]

I'd like to hear a sample where that is the case. In my sig file, Ethan Winer takes a horrible buzzing sound- the worst kind of noise you can possibly imagine- and runs it at descending levels under music. In his test, beyond -40dB the buzz is completely inaudible under the music. Link to his downloadable sample files: http://ethanwiner.com/aes/ -66dB is significantly further down than -40dB. I can't imagine a situation where any kind of noise at that level could be audible with commercially recorded music. The noise floor of the recording studio where the music was made is likely higher than -66dB.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded.415361/page-426#post-16515115

 

[A Jedi]

Mine (I was actually hoping to do better):

 

[bigshot]

It looks like I was about right with -40dB being the threshold. I bet the people at the left end were running it through something to cheat the test, and whatever software they used topped out around -50dB. A. Jedi, your software goes up to -66dB. Why weren't you able to get that score? Does the test not go up to -66?

 

[A Jedi]

After 51 I started getting the answers wrong. And no, I was not cheating w-t-f. I'm not sure how you would cheat. You either hear it or you don't. For what it's worth a few years before taking the test when I had my hearing checked (age 41) it was better than average. Curious what I would have heard at age 16.

If I remember correctly, the equipment I used for the test was Mac OS, Bifrost Multibit, BHA-1 and, Diana V2.

 

[gregorio]

It's not exactly like in the OP but ASR already does SNR @ 50mV and THD vs power @ different loads

Yes, ASR is already somewhat better than the single point reference of the industry standard. It would be good to go the “whole hog” though and see the full spectrum of freq and power vs distortion. That would effectively make it impossible for manufacturers to “game the numbers”.

G

 

[bigshot]

I have to be honest. I don't care whether you heard it or not. That information is only of interest to you. It doesn't impress me at all if you did. I'm interested in the threshold for human beings, and that chart gives me a very good idea about what that is. It shows a normal bell curve with a big anomaly in one section right at the edge of the test. I can guess why that is. If it wasn't you, it was everyone else who got that score. There's no reason why almost everyone was out of the game by -36 on the chart and then all of a sudden a lot of people can hear 51... which conveniently is the top end of the test. Go on. Pull the other one.

I've had some experience with audiophiles and self administered tests. We had one guy here who posted Footer results showing he could tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit. But when I asked him if he was gain riding the fade outs, he got mad and refused to answer. He took the demonstration of his superhuman hearing to another forum and he was called out for the same thing. He admitted that he had been gain riding to them.

I also was in contact with a person who aced a high bitrate lossy test I shared with him. He cited the time code of the lossless sample out perfectly and marched around the group proudly making a big deal of his superhuman hearing. Then I asked him to rank all the various data rates in the sample to identify from best to worst of the codecs and data rates I included in the test (Fraunhofer MP3, MP3 LAME, AIFF / 128, 192, 256, 320). At first he didn't even realize that there were ten different samples in the file I had given him. He went back and tried and thought the Fraunhofer 128 was the best sounding lossy file. He finally admitted that he hadn't even listened to the track I gave him the first time through. He just opened the file in an audio editing program and looked at the spectrum analysis to tell which was lossless. He noted the time code and came right back to the group to put on his superman act for us.

So, I'm interested in the 99%, not the 1%. I'm looking for useful info, not inflated numbers.

My advice is that if you really didn't cheat the test, you should look into verifying -51 with a properly administered double blind test. Audiologists might be interested in studying your ears.

 

[bigshot]

After 51 I started getting the answers wrong.

The test doesn't appear to have any samples after 51.

 

[gregorio]

So my first question will always be, "Is this audible?" If the answer is no, then I'm done.

If that were true then you would have been done for many of the threads to which you “contribute” well before this website even existed!

If the answer is "maybe under the right circumstances" my next question is "How likely would it be that a normal music listener would stumble into those particular circumstances.". …
It's surprising how difficult it is to get straight answers to those seemingly straightforward questions.

It might be “surprising” to someone who has never visited this subforum and/or knew little about the facts/science but anyone else would know that is NOT a straightforward question! There are obviously numerous variables at play; for example, the sensitivity of the listener, their equipment, the noise floor of their environment, their peak playback levels, the type/s of recordings they listen to, the freq content of those recordings and the exact nature of the distortion (EG. Even/odd harmonics or non-harmonic distortion). How your question therefore “seems” straightforward to you is utterly baffling considering how long you’ve frequented this subforum! Have you simply not read any of it, even that to which you’ve responded?

It looks like I was about right with -40dB being the threshold.

How on earth does it “look like you were right” when the very post prior to yours demonstrated a threshold far below -40dB, are you blind?

And no, I was not cheating w-t-f.

Don’t take it to heart @A Jedi, bigshot is very closely related to a typical deluded hardcore audiophile but in the opposite direction. Like audiophiles, he ignores or dismisses facts/science which don’t fit his personal experiences or beliefs, although his beliefs tend towards the opposite of every capacitor or 0.01% copper impurity matters. So if you present some fact which contradicts his belief, he’ll imply you’re a cheat or some other insult to justify his dismissal of your facts. To be fair, most of the time he’s correct but occasionally he’ll be wrong and then he’ll just double down on the innuendo/insults/BS and effectively troll, rather than admit to the BS.

The noise floor of the recording studio where the music was made is likely higher than -66dB.

Nonsense, you just made that up! Alternatively, it demonstrates (again) you’ve only worked in relatively poor/mediocre studios. I’m sure some studios, maybe even some commercial studios have a noise floor higher than -66dB. Many/Most professional studios will have a noise floor around -70dB or more and in quite a few cases, -80dB or even slightly more.

So, I'm interested in the 99%, not the 1%.

Even if you haven’t just made that figure up, that would be what, very roughly 40 million music listeners you’re not interested in?!! This isn’t the bigshot forum, it’s the Sound Science forum and science defines human beings and human thresholds by 100% of humans, NOT by only 99%!

I'm looking for useful info, not ego inflated numbers.

That’s both hypocritical and false! You’re looking for info that supports your own ego inflated beliefs. If you get some other info you’ll just dismiss it, regardless of whether or not that dismissal is warranted by the facts/science.

I'm interested in the threshold for human beings, and that chart gives me a very good idea about what that is.

Firstly, clearly you are ONLY interested in the threshold of bigshot and not of “human beings”! Are you really claiming “A Jedi” is not a human being simply because he can hear a level of distortion that quite a few others can hear but you can’t? It’s bad enough that you define the Sound Science forum effectively as Bigshot’s Forum, now you’re defining human beings by bigshot’s (false) beliefs!

Secondly, how does that chart give you “a very good idea what the human threshold” of distortion is? The chart does not indicate an absolute value of the amount of distortion, only the level of attenuation of the modelled distortion of a speaker. 0dB being the actual amount of distortion produced by the “real speaker”, NOT the amount of distortion! So in fact the chart gives pretty much no idea what the human threshold for distortion is, let alone a “very good idea”!

Your posts so far just confirm the accusation of you trying to pervert this subforum from the “Sound Science forum” to the “bigshot forum”. I’ve identified distortion down to around -70dB in the past BUT unlike you I don’t define science (or other human beings) by ONLY what I’ve experienced. There are extreme/very unusual (though still just about within the range of “reasonable”) conditions under which distortion even down to -80dB might be audible to some people or even somewhat beyond. I’ve not come across such people and don’t know if they actually exist but while I’m sceptical, I’m not going to call someone a liar, cheat or “not a human being” with no better basis than “I personally haven’t experienced it and I don’t know”!

G

 

[castleofargh]

Surfing on the edge of direct insults isn’t a great way to have a conversation. Even less so if you're so bad at sticking to the line.
While some bend themselves backward to avoid offending/antagonizing anybody, others just want to see the world burn.
Even if it wasn’t bigshot but some timid guy instead, what type of answer do you expect after setting such a tone? Clearly you’re looking for a fight.

 

[gregorio]

Even if it wasn’t bigshot but some timid guy instead, what type of answer do you expect after setting such a tone? Clearly you’re looking for a fight.

Trying to define science by what he’s interested in, in a sound science subforum, is looking for a fight. Implying “A Jedi” is cheating, is looking for a fight. Making false assertions about things we’ve had numerous discussions in the past about, is looking for a fight and so is making hypocritical statements about others’ ego.

The type of answer I expect is his typical one, deflection and/or more about his experience, his sitting room sound system, what he’s interested in and how he views others but not himself. What I don’t expect from him is any sort of valid “sound science” answer, EG. An answer that presents any facts/science to back up his assertions.

G