[mbphotox]

Thanks

That's what I expected, to be honest.
And I'm pretty sure my speakers couldn't handle 110dB SPL.. (not the tweeters, at least)

I usually listen at around 70-75dB(c)

 

[bigshot]

For something to be audible under music, it would have to be in the range of -40dB or higher, and even then, a lot of it would be covered up by the music. In my sig file is a video by Ethan Winer where he plays a horrible buzzing sound under music and drops it lower and lower until you can't hear it any more. You can download the files and listen to them yourself. That will give you an idea of what the numbers in the specs relate to in real world sound.

 

[gregorio]

I usually listen at around 70-75dB(c)

That’s entirely typical with speakers, it means that if you listen to popular genres of music your peak levels will probably be somewhere around 78-85dB and therefore artefacts at -80dB will be around 0dB, probably 30-40dB below the noise floor of your listening environment and completely inaudible.

If you listen to lightly or uncompressed, highly dynamic classical music (such as certain symphony orch recordings), your peak levels could be up to around 90dB, possibly as high as 95dB in exceptional cases. So worse case scenario would be artefacts around 15dB, still way below the noise floor of your listening environment unless your listening environment is an anechoic chamber or an exceptionally well isolated broadcast studio!

G

 

[Vamp898]

That’s entirely typical with speakers, it means that if you listen to popular genres of music your peak levels will probably be somewhere around 78-85dB and therefore artefacts at -80dB will be around 0dB, probably 30-40dB below the noise floor of your listening environment and completely inaudible.

If you listen to lightly or uncompressed, highly dynamic classical music (such as certain symphony orch recordings), your peak levels could be up to around 90dB, possibly as high as 95dB in exceptional cases. So worse case scenario would be artefacts around 15dB, still way below the noise floor of your listening environment unless your listening environment is an anechoic chamber or an exceptionally well isolated broadcast studio!

G

Yeah, with speakers worring about SNR makes even less sense as it already does with headphones or earphones.

Also i have some test files where i just turned down the volume in the recording to test things with audacity.

I decreased the volume of one song by -50db and it still sounds perfect to me, except for being way to quiet.

For comparison. After decreasing by 50db, the Song was on 120/120 High Gain roughly as loud as on 030/120 low gain and i could not hear any noise whatsoever. And i was listening with my isolating Monitor (roughly 30db noise isolation in a quiet room)

I then checked with an silent test file and at 095/120 High Gain i can hear a very very very faint of an hiss.

At 100/120 High Gain, i can hear the hiss clearly, but its still extremely quiet.

At 110/120 i can hear the hiss quiet, but its already loud enough that it annoys me. Interestingly enough, it didn't get any louder, even at 120/120 High Gain.

So i would be able to hear the noise at 110/120 High Gain with my isolating in-ear if no music is playing, but as soon music is playing at -50db, i have no chance in hearing the noise, the music is way to "loud".

And my Walkman is shunned for having oh so much noise

 

[gregorio]

For something to be audible under music, it would have to be in the range of -40dB or higher, and even then, a lot of it would be covered up by the music.

This raises a few interesting points worth mentioning given the title of this thread:

Firstly, “a lot of it would be covered up by the music” but not all. Depending on the type of artefact/s and what’s causing them, they can occur during pauses/silences in the music and/or during say fade-outs, where there’s little or no music to cover them up.

Secondly, while -40dB is a very reasonable “rule of thumb”, it’s certainly not always the case. -60dB is certainly possible to hear given specific, albeit non-typical conditions. For example training or particular sensitivity, a loud listening level, high quality equipment and a high quality listening environment. Even down to -70dB can be audible but requires even more extreme conditions; a very loud listening level, significant training, high quality equipment and a very high quality (isolated) listening environment. Once we get down to around -80dB to -90dB, there might possibly be a tiny number of people who could hear that, given exceptional conditions, although I’ve never come across any. Even the most sensitive, most highly trained “golden-ears” need listening levels beyond very loud and well into the hearing damage range.

I personally find this video interesting because in the same video it demonstrates both the best and the worst of amirm:


Clearly, amirm is very knowledgeable, particularly about the technical aspects, although not nearly so knowledgeable about the practicalities of music performance or creating commercial audio recordings. His talk on listening training and controlled testing is very good, it explains very well why the actual truth is the exact opposite of the common audiophile myth that double blind testing/ABX makes it more difficult to reliably discern differences.

On the other hand though; in addition to the lack of knowledge of the practicalities, there’s the issue of the technique required to pass a DBT/ABX when trying to discern tiny differences. Amir uses the example of 24bit vs 16bit, which I’ve also done but you can go even further, for example, noise shaped dither. To ABX traditional (triangular) dither, you not only need very good equipment and a good (isolated) listening environment, you have to turn the level up beyond “very loud” (probably around 15dB beyond) and into the range of uncomfortable/unpleasant (and potential hearing damage if too prolonged). Noise shaped dither is much harder to hear than triangular dither, to pass an ABX requires the specific technique Amir described. Namely: You have to know how noise shaped dither works and therefore where it might be exposed enough to be discernible. The best place would be a piece of music with a long fade-out to digital silence. You then create a loop of a few seconds near the end of the fade-out. The level at the start of the loop will need to be at least -50dBFS (or lower), so now we can turn the level up by say 40dB (or more). It’s still within the comfortable listening range and not only can we discern noise-shaped dither in an ABX but differences between different noise-shaping algorithms! However, you MUST create an automated loop, if you accidentally play earlier (or later) where the music level is close to 0dBFS, the output level will be 40dB (or more) higher than “very loud” and into the range of damaging or even blowing your amp, speakers/HPs or hearing!

Of course, this doesn’t bare any relation to how people actually listen to music. No one only listens exclusively to the last few seconds of certain tracks at hugely raised levels and audiophiles’ claim against DBT/ABX is the opposite, for long duration familiarity. For me though, this is the worst of Amir, he claims audibility because he can pass an ABX given these over amplified, looped short segment conditions which are completely unrepresentative of any reasonable listening scenario and indeed, he actually admits more than once in the video that without this technique he wouldn’t stand a chance of discerning these differences.

For me, “audibility” means you could pass an ABX under reasonable listening conditions. Conditions which would not result in peak levels that are unpleasantly or painfully loud and/or potentially cause hearing damage with just seconds of exposure time.

G

 

[Benesyed]

this is a very excellent point. This was my rationale for my Sony WMA1-AM2 player. it might not be the king of many specs, but it's use case is portable listening in not ideal listening situations so it's battery life advantage and excellent build quality more than makes up for it. a306 (uncapped) is faster ui which makes it an even better use case.

If Sony could make their DAPs UI quicker that's all I would need to consider them 10/10 perfect!

This raises a few interesting points worth mentioning given the title of this thread:

Firstly, “a lot of it would be covered up by the music” but not all. Depending on the type of artefact/s and what’s causing them, they can occur during pauses/silences in the music and/or during say fade-outs, where there’s little or no music to cover them up.

Secondly, while -40dB is a very reasonable “rule of thumb”, it’s certainly not always the case. -60dB is certainly possible to hear given specific, albeit non-typical conditions. For example training or particular sensitivity, a loud listening level, high quality equipment and a high quality listening environment. Even down to -70dB can be audible but requires even more extreme conditions; a very loud listening level, significant training, high quality equipment and a very high quality (isolated) listening environment. Once we get down to around -80dB to -90dB, there might possibly be a tiny number of people who could hear that, given exceptional conditions, although I’ve never come across any. Even the most sensitive, most highly trained “golden-ears” need listening levels beyond very loud and well into the hearing damage range.

I personally find this video interesting because in the same video it demonstrates both the best and the worst of amirm:


Clearly, amirm is very knowledgeable, particularly about the technical aspects, although not nearly so knowledgeable about the practicalities of music performance or creating commercial audio recordings. His talk on listening training and controlled testing is very good, it explains very well why the actual truth is the exact opposite of the common audiophile myth that double blind testing/ABX makes it more difficult to reliably discern differences.

On the other hand though; in addition to the lack of knowledge of the practicalities, there’s the issue of the technique required to pass a DBT/ABX when trying to discern tiny differences. Amir uses the example of 24bit vs 16bit, which I’ve also done but you can go even further, for example, noise shaped dither. To ABX traditional (triangular) dither, you not only need very good equipment and a good (isolated) listening environment, you have to turn the level up beyond “very loud” (probably around 15dB beyond) and into the range of uncomfortable/unpleasant (and potential hearing damage if too prolonged). Noise shaped dither is much harder to hear than triangular dither, to pass an ABX requires the specific technique Amir described. Namely: You have to know how noise shaped dither works and therefore where it might be exposed enough to be discernible. The best place would be a piece of music with a long fade-out to digital silence. You then create a loop of a few seconds near the end of the fade-out. The level at the start of the loop will need to be at least -50dBFS (or lower), so now we can turn the level up by say 40dB (or more). It’s still within the comfortable listening range and not only can we discern noise-shaped dither in an ABX but differences between different noise-shaping algorithms! However, you MUST create an automated loop, if you accidentally play earlier (or later) where the music level is close to 0dBFS, the output level will be 40dB (or more) higher than “very loud” and into the range of damaging or even blowing your amp, speakers/HPs or hearing!

Of course, this doesn’t bare any relation to how people actually listen to music. No one only listens exclusively to the last few seconds of certain tracks at hugely raised levels and audiophiles’ claim against DBT/ABX is the opposite, for long duration familiarity. For me though, this is the worst of Amir, he claims audibility because he can pass an ABX given these over amplified, looped short segment conditions which are completely unrepresentative of any reasonable listening scenario and indeed, he actually admits more than once in the video that without this technique he wouldn’t stand a chance of discerning these differences.

For me, “audibility” means you could pass an ABX under reasonable listening conditions. Conditions which would not result in peak levels that are unpleasantly or painfully loud and/or potentially cause hearing damage with just seconds of exposure time.

G

 

[mbphotox]

that's a massive junk of cash for a dap that's got a slow UI

I got the FiiO M11s bc of the fast UI and have major buyer's regret, bc it turned out to not be an improvement over my Plenue D2 at all..
cannot stream Airplay (to my B&W Zeppelin Air bedroom speaker) any better than my phone..

and it's generally just not what I hoped for.

I really just wanted the Plenue D2 with a fast UI and maybe Tidal...

 

[bigshot]

When it comes to players and amps, I haven't found sound quality to be as much of an issue as convenience and usability. Yet most reviews focus on minute differences in inaudible sound instead of the things that really matter in day to day use. I understand the "hair shirt" mentality of audiophiles- the more complicated and more cables and the more black boxes, the better- but I'm not in this for "busy box" equipment. I'm in it for the music. I prefer to buy equipment that is audibly transparent and simple and straightforward to carry and use. That isn't hard to do at all, but reviews don't generally help much in figuring out what is best for me.

 

[mbphotox]

https://www.stereonet.com/forums/topic/32035-dac-shootout-dac-off/

went looking for the stereomojo test on DACs, stumbled upon this.

How can people spend thousands of dollars on a DAC in an attempt to get to the same "level" as their vinyl?

Wouldn't you want the DAC to provide the most accurate reproduction of the recording, whereas with a turntable you accept a limited dynamic range (of maybe 60dB) and use a transducer that is inherently far from being "honest" and introduce all sorts of extra diminishing factors (belt wear, motor speed, wow, flutter, misalignment of the cartridge, stylus alignment, wear of the tip, etc.)

I mean, I love my vinyl, but certainly not for being superior to digital audio...




That said, I totally believe that psychoacoustics play a major role in the enjoyment of this hobby!
staring at an ugly box (taste is personal) in an uncomfortable room while stressed from work is a surefire way to not enjoy the music much.

 

[Vamp898]

When it comes to players and amps, I haven't found sound quality to be as much of an issue as convenience and usability. Yet most reviews focus on minute differences in inaudible sound instead of the things that really matter in day to day use. I understand the "hair shirt" mentality of audiophiles- the more complicated and more cables and the more black boxes, the better- but I'm not in this for "busy box" equipment. I'm in it for the music. I prefer to buy equipment that is audibly transparent and simple and straightforward to carry and use. That isn't hard to do at all, but reviews don't generally help much in figuring out what is best for me.

Most people who buy sportscars never drive in actual reaces and so can never benefit from all of the advantages of their car.

They discuss which car is faster on the track with an matter of ms between cars, but never go on a race track.

And still they do it. And its the same with audio equipment. And depending on the device, the differences can be big.

Sure, the difference between an Golf R and an Civic Type R is not Day and Night. They have comparable (not identical though) race track times. But you will instantly notice the difference between an average Golf and an Civic Type R.

But you made a good point, "as long as it sounds transparent". Currently there is not a single measurement technology that ensures this. All measurement technologies we have (and those include the industry standard ones that cost >10'000 bucks) are unable to tell us, if it sounds transparent.

I thought that myth in the past too and bought an absolute 100% transparent measuring USB-C DAC with insanely good measurements beating most DAPs because i thought, that is way more comfortable than my DAP and it should sound the same, as it measures transparent, like my DAP.

But the sound difference was big, even though it was supposed to sound transparent.

I did an volume matched blind test together with my father and my ex girlfriend and everybody was instantly and without even thinking about it able to hear the difference.

And because i use isolating In-Ear outside that enable me to enjoy high music quality even in busy areas, i was able to hear the difference, even on a plane. Yes, the difference is not big, 100% true, but we're not doing this hobby becaue 90% is good enough for us.

Some devices that have excellent measurements get completely destroyed as soon you switch from an sine to an rectangular wave. DAC and Amp makers are not stupid, they know exactly what and how we're testing and their optimizing their devices on exactly these measurements. There is a nice youtube video "dont trust measurements" posted several times here in this thread who explains it in detail.

Devices that should not have any audible difference whatsoever sound different, when you, instead of an sine wave, play actual music and record it back.

I bought an ADC and test devices by actual playing back music and comparing the result and you won't believe how big differences can get, especially in the bass. Two devices that measure dead flat suddenly have 5db bass boost (or are recessed by 5db, depending on how you look at it) when you play an actual song.

This could be done by software (absolutely possible), or by tons of other factors, but fact is, two devices that both measure transparent can sound different and intransparent.

And nobody cares. Nobody is looking into this. I asked this question several times on some audio science forums in hope to get any explanation and all what i got was "Somethings is wrong" or "something is broken" but most of the time the result was "I payed 20'000$ on an measurement rack, i am right, you're wrong, don't annoy us". They often don't care if things sound different and why. If they measure the same, they sound the same, even if you're able to reproduce the results in blind tests. And i am not the first person who noticed that. There have been several people showing off that they can differentiate in blind tests between DAPs that measure identical to the point of fault tolerance.

Currently i am in contact with an DAC/AMP maker to develop the highest quality ADC possible and to build a database showing the difference between products when actual music is played instead of sample patterns. How big the difference between sine and rectangular signals are and so on. Its insane that devices drop to audible distortion as soon you switch from sine to rectangular and nobody cares. The arrogance in the "measurement community", both earphone and sources is insanely high so i don't expect anyone of them to do this.

So currently i am sure, that it is impossible to know what devices are really transparent outside of sample patterns.

WM1Z and WM1A measured identical and sounded very different. The measurements of the new Walkman are pretty much identical to the ones from the previous generation and the difference is big enough, that people refuse to upgrade.

If someone is not able to hear the difference between an first and second generation Walkman, he must be almost deaf, and still, the measurements attest, that they sound identical.

Again, the ignorance and arrogance in the measurement community is insanely high, i do absolutely not trust them. When testing earphone, i play an 20-20 sweep and a lot of times, non of the dips and peaks from the measurements are there at all.

Sometimes measurements of earphone show an dip of up to 10db (which would be 1/4 volume) and if you listen to a sweep, its a constant and perfect sweep with no change in volume.

 

[mbphotox]

Most people who buy sportscars never drive in actual reaces and so can never benefit from all of the advantages of their car.

They discuss which car is faster on the track with an matter of ms between cars, but never go on a race track.

And still they do it. And its the same with audio equipment. And depending on the device, the differences can be big.

Sure, the difference between an Golf R and an Civic Type R is not Day and Night. They have comparable (not identical though) race track times. But you will instantly notice the difference between an average Golf and an Civic Type R.

But you made a good point, "as long as it sounds transparent". Currently there is not a single measurement technology that ensures this. All measurement technologies we have (and those include the industry standard ones that cost >10'000 bucks) are unable to tell us, if it sounds transparent.

I thought that myth in the past too and bought an absolute 100% transparent measuring USB-C DAC with insanely good measurements beating most DAPs because i thought, that is way more comfortable than my DAP and it should sound the same, as it measures transparent, like my DAP.

But the sound difference was big, even though it was supposed to sound transparent.

I did an volume matched blind test together with my father and my ex girlfriend and everybody was instantly and without even thinking about it able to hear the difference.

And because i use isolating In-Ear outside that enable me to enjoy high music quality even in busy areas, i was able to hear the difference, even on a plane. Yes, the difference is not big, 100% true, but we're not doing this hobby becaue 90% is good enough for us.

Some devices that have excellent measurements get completely destroyed as soon you switch from an sine to an rectangular wave. DAC and Amp makers are not stupid, they know exactly what and how we're testing and their optimizing their devices on exactly these measurements. There is a nice youtube video "dont trust measurements" posted several times here in this thread who explains it in detail.

Devices that should not have any audible difference whatsoever sound different, when you, instead of an sine wave, play actual music and record it back.

I bought an ADC and test devices by actual playing back music and comparing the result and you won't believe how big differences can get, especially in the bass. Two devices that measure dead flat suddenly have 5db bass boost (or are recessed by 5db, depending on how you look at it) when you play an actual song.

This could be done by software (absolutely possible), or by tons of other factors, but fact is, two devices that both measure transparent can sound different and intransparent.

And nobody cares. Nobody is looking into this. I asked this question several times on some audio science forums in hope to get any explanation and all what i got was "Somethings is wrong" or "something is broken" but most of the time the result was "I payed 20'000$ on an measurement rack, i am right, you're wrong, don't annoy us". They often don't care if things sound different and why. If they measure the same, they sound the same, even if you're able to reproduce the results in blind tests. And i am not the first person who noticed that. There have been several people showing off that they can differentiate in blind tests between DAPs that measure identical to the point of fault tolerance.

Currently i am in contact with an DAC/AMP maker to develop the highest quality ADC possible and to build a database showing the difference between products when actual music is played instead of sample patterns. How big the difference between sine and rectangular signals are and so on. Its insane that devices drop to audible distortion as soon you switch from sine to rectangular and nobody cares. The arrogance in the "measurement community", both earphone and sources is insanely high so i don't expect anyone of them to do this.

So currently i am sure, that it is impossible to know what devices are really transparent outside of sample patterns.

WM1Z and WM1A measured identical and sounded very different. The measurements of the new Walkman are pretty much identical to the ones from the previous generation and the difference is big enough, that people refuse to upgrade.

If someone is not able to hear the difference between an first and second generation Walkman, he must be almost deaf, and still, the measurements attest, that they sound identical.

Again, the ignorance and arrogance in the measurement community is insanely high, i do absolutely not trust them. When testing earphone, i play an 20-20 sweep and a lot of times, non of the dips and peaks from the measurements are there at all.

Sometimes measurements of earphone show an dip of up to 10db (which would be 1/4 volume) and if you listen to a sweep, its a constant and perfect sweep with no change in volume.

there's a link to positive ABX test results at the beginning.
One of them was showing both measurements as well as results of listening tests.

The testers used the amplifiers and headphones where they expected the biggest differences based on measurements. And they found them.


While a device may measure "transparent" against a fixed load of say 8 Ohms, most transducers do not have linear impedances at all.

If you look at the impedance curve of the HD600 headphones, you will notice a massive bump in the mid-bass, where it reaches nearly 600 Ohms.

Depending on the output impedance of your amplifier, that can certainly mean that you will get an altered bass response.



the guy at Stereophile tests amplifiers with his reference speakers, Wilson Audio Alexandria.. beautiful high-end speakers. But their impedance drops BELOW 2 Ohms.

It's safe to assume that most amplifiers will struggle with this when they were designed to drive 4-8 Ohm speakers...



I love measurements, but I agree with you:
they should not be conducted at 1kHz into 8 Ohm linear loads...

They should provide a more complete image of the performance of a device.




with regards to your DAP: is it possible that they introduced a filter or EQ setting?
Did people measure the output?

 

[Vamp898]

there's a link to positive ABX test results at the beginning.
One of them was showing both measurements as well as results of listening tests.

The testers used the amplifiers and headphones where they expected the biggest differences based on measurements. And they found them.


While a device may measure "transparent" against a fixed load of say 8 Ohms, most transducers do not have linear impedances at all.

If you look at the impedance curve of the HD600 headphones, you will notice a massive bump in the mid-bass, where it reaches nearly 600 Ohms.

Depending on the output impedance of your amplifier, that can certainly mean that you will get an altered bass response.



the guy at Stereophile tests amplifiers with his reference speakers, Wilson Audio Alexandria.. beautiful high-end speakers. But their impedance drops BELOW 2 Ohms.

It's safe to assume that most amplifiers will struggle with this when they were designed to drive 4-8 Ohm speakers...



I love measurements, but I agree with you:
they should not be conducted at 1kHz into 8 Ohm linear loads...

They should provide a more complete image of the performance of a device.




with regards to your DAP: is it possible that they introduced a filter or EQ setting?
Did people measure the output?

They did both run on direct and they even use the exact same amp chip. Everything what Sony did between releases was replace the capacitors and change the board layout

The First generation used 13 FTCAP + Double layer, the new generation use 21 FTCAP3

So the differene is due to the capacitor change mostly which makes sense, as the output impedance of capacitors is not linear and also changes drastically depending on how much power you draw and so on.

So with an complex output impdeance measurement with several loads and using different frequencies than 1kHz, it might show up.

 

[gregorio]

How can people spend thousands of dollars on a DAC in an attempt to get to the same "level" as their vinyl?

In a word, “marketing”!

And it’s the same with audio equipment.

Of course it’s not the same. Sure, owners of sports/super cars relatively rarely go on race tracks and use all the potential of the car in a short space of time but surely you’re not claiming that the owners of such cars never use any of that performance and always drive them within the limits of say a Ford Focus?

And depending on the device, the differences can be big.

In the case of transducers, then sure. In the case of ADCs, DACs, Amps and many other audio devices then the differences are generally tiny, unless of course the device includes functionality such as EQ and you engage it.

But you made a good point, "as long as it sounds transparent". Currently there is not a single measurement technology that ensures this.

Nonsense, there’s a very old, widely used and excepted test (a null test) that does this even without hugely expensive measuring equipment.

I bought an ADC and test devices by actual playing back music and comparing the result and you won't believe how big differences can get, especially in the bass. Two devices that measure dead flat suddenly have 5db bass boost (or are recessed by 5db, depending on how you look at it) when you play an actual song.

No, they don’t. If they measure dead flat then they are dead flat. Either you don’t know what “dead flat” means or you did not measure it properly.

But the sound difference was big, even though it was supposed to sound transparent.

The sound difference can be big, depending on what processing is being applied.

And nobody cares. Nobody is looking into this.

Of course people care, you really think recording or mastering engineers don’t care if there’s a 5dB boost or cut in the bass or those who manufacture the equipment they use. You’re right though “nobody is looking into this” because why would anyone look into something that doesn’t exist?

It’s insane that devices drop to audible distortion as soon you switch from sine to rectangular and nobody cares.

What devices drop to audible distortion and even if they did, why would anyone care? All sound (obviously including music) is made-up of sine waves or combinations of sine waves, so why would anyone who records or reproduces sound/music care about other wave types which don’t exist in sound/music?

the ignorance and arrogance in the measurement community is insanely high

If that were true, then what would you call the ignorance and arrogance in the anti-measurement community? What’s massively beyond “insanely high”?

G

 

[Vamp898]

In a word, “marketing”!

Of course it’s not the same. Sure, owners of sports/super cars relatively rarely go on race tracks and use all the potential of the car in a short space of time but surely you’re not claiming that the owners of such cars never use any of that performance and always drive them within the limits of say a Ford Focus?

That is true, but you never need them and that is the point. You could use those features in the legal limits somehow, but still there is no advantage. You do that for fun, you don't earn money or gain anything else from that.

Its the same with photography and every other hobby. Hobbys are there for fun and it makes fun to use a sportscar outside of an racetrack. And it makes fun to use high end audio equipment even when an TWS would be as fine when commuting.

Nonsense, there’s a very old, widely used and excepted test (a null test) that does this even without hugely expensive measuring equipment.

A Null test is exactly what i use.

How do you think do i make those differences visible? I explained it already in former posts but to fresh your memory up. I use the original Song as a reference, perfectly align the recording, flip the phase and mix them together. The result is the difference.

No, they don’t. If they measure dead flat then they are dead flat. Either you don’t know what “dead flat” means or you did not measure it properly.

Thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to this argument. You might as well just stay silent if you have nothing to say.

The sound difference can be big, depending on what processing is being applied.

What processing do you mean? In the decding phase? The amplyfing phase? The recording phase? The analysing phase?

Again, why not just say silent when you have nothing to say.

Of course people care, you really think recording or mastering engineers don’t care if there’s a 5dB boost or cut in the bass or those who manufacture the equipment they use. You’re right though “nobody is looking into this” because why would anyone look into something that doesn’t exist?

As we established in the past, you have absolutely 0 knowledge about recoridng, mixing and mastering. Maybe you should just accept that you can not contribute to every word that was ever said on this planet and stay silent when you have nothing to say.

What devices drop to audible distortion and even if they did, why would anyone care? All sound (obviously including music) is made-up of sine waves or combinations of sine waves, so why would anyone who records or reproduces sound/music care about other wave types which don’t exist in sound/music?

Your lack of understanding (or unwillingness) is beyond comprehension.

This example is made to show, that these devices are optimized on perfect and clean sine waves and as soon you step away from that, they sometimes measure drastically different.

Beside that, rectangular waves do exist in music, did you ever heard of electronic music? Rectangular, triangle waves and so on are commonly used in electronic music, especially in 8bit music and chiptune, retro games and so on. Its a common thing you find everywhere.

Please stop talking about things you have no knowledge in

If that were true, then what would you call the ignorance and arrogance in the anti-measurement community? What’s massively beyond “insanely high”?

I don't know, i don't care. Nobody was talking about them so i guess nobody cares who they are called.

 

[gregorio]

You could use those features in the legal limits somehow, but still there is no advantage. You do that for fun, you don't earn money or gain anything else from that.

That’s both false and a contradiction! Driving faster gets you to your destination quicker, how is that “no advantage”? Also, how is having fun “no advantage”? And lastly, do you really believe that those selling “fun” or things which enable people to have fun don’t earn any money or gain anything else from that?

A Null test is exactly what i use.

Really, so you’re using a test that you don’t know what it’s testing for? That’s astonishing!

It might be difficult for you to believe but surprisingly a “Null Test” tests for a Null! If it detects a null then by definition both tested files/signals are identical and therefore perfectly transparent. But you stated there was no measurement for transparency despite the fact you now state you use the test specifically designed to detect that?!

I use the original Song as a reference, perfectly align the recording, flip the phase and mix them together. The result is the difference.

The result is the difference if there is one or zero (null) if there isn’t any difference at all. Therefore it can test for transparency, contrary to you false assertion!

Thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to this argument.

I have contributed to this argument, I’ve rebutted the your false assertions.

What processing do you mean? In the decding phase? The amplyfing phase? The recording phase? The analysing phase?

Potentially any phase, what would be the point of having a “phase” that didn’t change anything? For example, the amplifying phase obviously amplifies the signal and what would be the point of inaudibly amplifying a signal, isn’t the whole point to make it audibly louder?

Again, why not just say silent when you have nothing to say.

I did have something to say but if all you have to say is false assertions, then staying silent is most definitely the better choice in this subforum!

As we established in the past, you have absolutely 0 knowledge about recoridng, mixing and mastering.

What “we”, you and some other trolls? The artists I’ve worked with, the studios I’ve worked at, the university I taught the subject at, the external examiners and students I taught did not establish that.

Your lack of understanding (or unwillingness) is beyond comprehension.

I don’t doubt my understanding and unwillingness to accept BS is beyond your comprehension!!

Rectangular, triangle waves and so on are commonly used in electronic music, especially in 8bit music and chiptune, retro games and so on.

And what do you think the rectangular, triangular/sawtooth waves commonly used in electronic music are made from? You think maybe samplers and synths used in electronic music have unlimited bandwidth and somehow break the laws physics?

Please stop talking about things you have no knowledge in …

You should take that advise yourself BEFORE you try to give it to others!

[1] I don't know, i don't care. [2] Nobody was talking about them so i guess nobody cares who they are called.

1. That’s up to you, but you should as it applies to you!
2. Haven’t you even read the title of this thread?

G