[johnjen]

dup deleted

 

[johnjen]

I would like to see some documentation or research that shows that our instruments are insufficient in capturing the subtleties that the ear can tease out. Our instruments can dig way down into the noise floor with greater accuracy than our ears can. While our ears may give out at 60-70 db of variation realistically, we have instruments getting well beyond 110 db. Having said that, yes I do hear differences in electronic gear (in subjective evaluation) when the instruments are both providing distortion at well below what I can hear. So it is a conundrum for me.

Again music is DYNAMIC and the measurements simply are not capable of dealing with this type of signal.
IOW Ya can't get there from here…

And using measurements to determine the capabilities of our hearing is using the same limited (non-DYNAMIC) measurement systems that we use to measure the gear itself, which means it is also limited as in it's not able to deal with the DYNAMICS of music itself.

And while we can measure to -150dB± it is still based upon non-DYNAMIC conditions and the results are 'static' (like a single number -150dB)

Consider these 2 posts.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sch...bable-start-up.701900/page-3735#post-15429977
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sch...bable-start-up.701900/page-3735#post-15430188
Perhaps they can provide some additional context.

JJ

 

[bfreedma]

Once again music is DYNAMIC and measurements are not.
IOW ya can't get there from here.

How do we 'measure' the ears capabilities, and the gear itself, using measurement techniques that are both based upon the same limitations and expect to reveal differences, when the very measurements themselves are not capable of dealing with the DYNAMICS of either?

Yes we can measure -100dB (or better) signals but they are based upon non-DYNAMIC criteria.
IOW ya can't get there from here.

JJ

it’s possible to take the output from two devices (playing music, not tones) and subtract one data set from another. The result will provide a very good idea of how different or not two device’s output is. Assuming measurements are only done with limited signals is not representative of the full suite of possible analysis.

 

[Lucky87]

Hey guys here a question that may have already been answered has anyone tried a Yggy A2 with a Chord M Scaler? I’ve finally audition the TT2/M Scaler, and The Dave and I was very surprised by the M Scaler sound. But I still preferred the Dave by itself vs the TT2/M Scaler. I didn’t get a chance to try the M Scaler with the Dave. I also prefer the Yggy A2 to the TT2 by itself. So has anyone tried the Yggy A2/Chord M Scaler combo? Thanks

 

[johnjen]

it’s possible to take the output from two devices (playing music, not tones) and subtract one data set from another. The result will provide a very good idea of how different or not two device’s output is. Assuming measurements are only done with limited signals is not representative of the full suite of possible analysis.

Yes differential analysis will give variations of null results but that doesn't mean that a true null result or some residual signal is meaningful because it reduces the dynamic conditions to 'static' results, ie. a % of the original as a residual signal.
Not to mention how do you ascertain that both signals that wind up being used to cancel each other are precise enough (let alone dynamically time aligned) to some necessary level of precision?

Yes it can perhaps tell you if the device is operating 'properly' as in obtaining a 'true' null result, but how does this directly pertain to the dynamics of the SQ of music?

JJ

 

[earnmyturns]

I would like to see some documentation or research that shows that our instruments are insufficient in capturing the subtleties that the ear can tease out. Our instruments can dig way down into the noise floor with greater accuracy than our ears can. While our ears may give out at 60-70 db of variation realistically, we have instruments getting well beyond 110 db. Having said that, yes I do hear differences in electronic gear (in subjective evaluation) when the instruments are both providing distortion at well below what I can hear. So it is a conundrum for me.

Part I of https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/human-and-machine-hearing/3660166B40020EE587D94BB7A309FC12 covers a lot, including biophysical experiments that show effects that standard frequency-domain measurements miss. Human hearing has very complex responses to the relationships between different frequencies, time-domain effects, and more. Surprisingly, it can discriminate very small time intervals way faster than neuron firing.

 

[bfreedma]

Yes differential analysis will give variations of null results but that doesn't mean that a true null result or some residual signal is meaningful because it reduces the dynamic conditions to 'static' results, ie. a % of the original as a residual signal.
Not to mention how do you ascertain that both signals that wind up being used to cancel each other are precise enough (let alone dynamically time aligned) to some necessary level of precision?

Yes it can perhaps tell you if the device is operating 'properly' as in obtaining a 'true' null result, but how does this directly pertain to the dynamics of the SQ of music?

JJ

if the output of the two devices null out, then the signal is the same and the audible output is the same. Anything -70db or greater is immaterial. And doing this does not reduce the dynamic signal to static - this method utilizes the entire signal including amplitude.

it feels like you’re throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall in the hope that something sticks, the reality is, the precision of modern measurement systems is orders of magnitude greater than human audibility.

 

[ProfFalkin]

All the measurement folk be like "I can tell you everything there is to know about a person from just their shoe size. Personality, date of birth, hair color... everything can be determined, because every shoe can be measured. Methods used for measuring feet by others are inadequate, so we use a system that describes the dimensions in millionths of furlongs. There is a new website called Foot Science Review. Objectivists and those with real world experience need not apply."

That's my take on this discussion.

 

[bfreedma]

All the measurement folk be like "I can tell you everything there is to know about a person from just their shoe size. Personality, date of birth, hair color... everything can be determined, because every shoe can be measured. Methods used for measuring feet by others are inadequate, so we use a system that describes the dimensions in millionths of furlongs. There is a new website called Foot Science Review. Objectivists and those with real world experience need not apply."

That's my take on this discussion.

If we were measuring feet, we would actually see meaningful measurable differences...

Probably best not to compare measuring audio equipment to people. Cause sentience. Though one could utilize DNA analysis to extend your analogy. And those DNA measurements would provide a whole bunch of information.

That said, where have I or anyone else stated that a single limited measurement could fully document something’s audible performance? That’s your straw man, not mine.

We should take this to Sound Science or PM to continue the discussion as we are derailing the thread.

 

[garbulky]

Again music is DYNAMIC and the measurements simply are not capable of dealing with this type of signal.
IOW Ya can't get there from here…

And using measurements to determine the capabilities of our hearing is using the same limited (non-DYNAMIC) measurement systems that we use to measure the gear itself, which means it is also limited as in it's not able to deal with the DYNAMICS of music itself.

And while we can measure to -150dB± it is still based upon non-DYNAMIC conditions and the results are 'static' (like a single number -150dB)

Consider these 2 posts.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sch...bable-start-up.701900/page-3735#post-15429977
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sch...bable-start-up.701900/page-3735#post-15430188
Perhaps they can provide some additional context.

JJ

I read the threads you linked. The "compensatory distortions" only holds if we can specify what distortions are supposed to be positive for subjective listening. For instance if we can't HEAR these compensatory distortions because they are buried so far down in the signal, it doesn't really matter. Tube amps have supposed euphonic distortion but though that is not necessarily true. Also the distortions reach a pretty high level before they are audible.

As for dynamics, I do agree that dynamics are in the heart of what makes a system sounds so good. We can certainly do all kinds of dynamics with a measuring system. We can produce a 1 khz sine wav at 0db and another 980hz signal at -30 db. The AP that Jason uses can produce 32 tones at a single time. We can also capture a recorded piece of music over a period of time and compare it to another signal visually.

 

[garbulky]

Part I of https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/human-and-machine-hearing/3660166B40020EE587D94BB7A309FC12 covers a lot, including biophysical experiments that show effects that standard frequency-domain measurements miss. Human hearing has very complex responses to the relationships between different frequencies, time-domain effects, and more. Surprisingly, it can discriminate very small time intervals way faster than neuron firing.

Thanks for the link. Part 1 is 90 pages. Could you point me to a specific page/page range linking to these experiments that show that it can differentiate time intervals better than measuring instruments can?

 

[johnjen]

I read the threads you linked. The "compensatory distortions" only holds if we can specify what distortions are supposed to be positive for subjective listening. For instance if we can't HEAR these compensatory distortions because they are buried so far down in the signal, it doesn't really matter. Tube amps have supposed euphonic distortion but though that is not necessarily true. Also the distortions reach a pretty high level before they are audible.

As for dynamics, I do agree that dynamics are in the heart of what makes a system sounds so good. We can certainly do all kinds of dynamics with a measuring system. We can produce a 1 khz sine wav at 0db and another 980hz signal at -30 db. The AP that Jason uses can produce 32 tones at a single time. We can also capture a recorded piece of music over a period of time and compare it to another signal visually.

If your take away of those 2 post is as you posted then I'm afraid we see it very differently.
And tube circuits in fact CAN have 'euphonic distortion', my tube amps are examples of this.
And this 'euphonic distortion' is not about how much, rather the types and %'s of the different types of distortions, which is directly related to those 2 posts I previously linked.

And your points, "I do agree that dynamics are in the heart of what makes a system sounds so good." and 'using 2 tones at the same time are examples of dynamics', then we have very different understandings of dynamics as well.

JJ

 

[Ableza]

The analog to testing dynamics and transient response in an audio test suite would be an impulse test. It has nothing to do with multiple tones, it is about rate of change.

 

[gdhal]

@garbulky

So given the back-and-forth posts on this thread of late, and based on your own listening, I ask this question of you with the utmost sincerity.

What are your impressions, opinions, etc. of the Yggdrasil?

Thank you.

 

[DrTone]

Hey guys here a question that may have already been answered has anyone tried a Yggy A2 with a Chord M Scaler? I’ve finally audition the TT2/M Scaler, and The Dave and I was very surprised by the M Scaler sound. But I still preferred the Dave by itself vs the TT2/M Scaler. I didn’t get a chance to try the M Scaler with the Dave. I also prefer the Yggy A2 to the TT2 by itself. So has anyone tried the Yggy A2/Chord M Scaler combo? Thanks

Dithering 24bit to 20bit would be the only thing I would consider doing in front of the Yggdrasil.