[analogsurviver]

This old canard. Written on the first page of the "Audiophile Denial Handbook".

My sources and amplifiers are audibly transparent, with any speaker on the planet. Period. And before you go there, there isn't a record player on the planet that will achieve even half the reproduction quality, it's physically impossible.

My speakers are Focals. They aren't perfect as they're bookshelf speakers, but I have a Martin Logan sub to augment them. This is the only element of my signal chain that could be improved. But money is a concern, and speakers are expensive. That said nothing you have stated would affect anything at this point anyway, the speakers would sound the same with two identical signals.

OK, please disregard my repeated question regarding your equipment; I should have read all the answers beforehand.

But, the answer to at least sources is incomplete. Analog record, analog tape, MP3, CD, SACD, BluRay, Hirez, PCM or DSD (- and at which sampling rates ? Which DAC(s) ? I am not kidding or joking, I would like to showcase what CAN go wrong - even if people are mostly not aware of it.

Regarding turntables; you would be surprised what they can actually put out ... - and not all "audibly transparent amplifiers" have the stomach for it.

"Audibly transparent with any speakers on the planet" are - maybe, and I EMPHASIZE MAYBE - amps that can be counted on the fingers of a single hand ( but since I can not know everything, I am generously extending that to fingers of both hands ). "Any speakers on the planet" must also include electrostatics - and some of them dip well below half an ohm in impedance at certain frequencies, particularly in the treble;, that impedance is also highly reactive at the same time. It can be higher than 100 ohms in the bass and below 1 ohm in the treble - depending on the particular model of electrostatic speaker. There is one with "equalized impedance" ( Audio Exklusiv from Germany https://www.audio-exklusiv.de/en/start/ ), which has, for an electrostatic speaker, unbelievably constant impedance curve. The only catch is that it is 0.2 ohms in the bass, rising slowly to about 0.5 ohms in the treble... Most amps that are more than audibly transparent in most speakers a la Focal simply fall apart with those loads, like heavy brick thrown in your large balcony window. No way that can be "inaudible". But, amps that can play audibly transparent and LOUD into such difficult loads DO exist.

And, no, your setup should be more than good enough to reveal the difference between say RBCD and HiRez version of the same recording, provided MASTER (OR INITIAL RECORDING) of this recording is native HiRez.

 

[analogsurviver]

What is analog at its best? I've been to concerts.

Analog at is best has always been, continues to be and will for always remain direct to disk recording - which is, by its very definition, a live recording. The only choice is if it is a live recording in front of the regular audience or "studio" recording without the audience - even if recorded in the venue where normally audience is present. It can only be a 2 track normal stereo, because quadrophonic carrier(s) frequency is around 45 kHz ( depending on the system ) - and cutter head maximum flat frequency response is 27 kHz, thus necessitating half speed mastering for quadrophonic. One obviously can not make musicians play at half speed - so overzealous sellers on ebay offering "half speed mastered direct to disk records" have gone "one bridge too far".

This is by now long sold out direct to disk set recorded in concert using 2 microphone single point Bluemlein miking technique:



https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/brahms-symphonies-on-direct-to-disc-vinyl/

 

[analogsurviver]

If it's -50dB it is probably inaudible under music. But most equipment is at least -70dB.

Errr... you've got tons of SACDs - don't you ?

 

[analogsurviver]

I think this brings on the most salient part. I have read forum member responses that audio reproduction is its own thing and shouldn't try to reproduce the conditions of live acoustic performance. However, I do like collecting blu-ray concerts. They don't particularly mimic the "live" performance in that there are many camera angles focused on stage (IE not whatever seat you'd hold) and they usually have a mixed PCM stereo track as well as a high resolution 5.1 surround mix. When trying to switch between the PCM 2.0 mixes and 5.1 lossless, I've noticed levels tend to be completely different. I usually resort to preferring the high res surround that adds some ambience. Camera angles are also ever changing...so the presentation isn't the same as having a static seat there. Now that I have a really good OLED TV and 7.1.4 system, I'd say I get an even better presentation as the cameras are closer and the audio is well mixed. Interesting side note I've noticed about my new receiver...if the source is 92khz+, it stays 2D surround without 3D surround for DTS:X (can switch to Dolby Surround and Auro-3D, but the EQ doesn't seem as good).

Great post. Reflects reality really well.

I most certainly do not agree with those saying audio reproduction is its own thing and shouldn't try to reproduce the conditions of live acoustic performance. On the contrary !

Although at home I do not have a surround set up ( too small room for it to really shine as it should, sadly not worth bothering ...), I have enough decent sounding surround experience to concur. Camera angles and audio can get sometimes/most of the time too servile ( focusing on the lead singer/player only, and to hell with the rest... ) - but that is not defect of the format, but inappropriate use of its capabilities. Used properly, such live recordings can provide a better experience than actually being there, particularly if one's seats were rather far removed from the "sweet spot" - which is, at most live events requiring amplification, somewhere around and close to the mixing desk position. That is also reflected in the ticket prices.

 

[gregorio]

As for #1... I guess we just read things differently.
As for #2... Until and unless you can find me a few actual test reports stating that "the THD on a certain piece of equipment is inaudible"....
[2a] Then stating it as a number will be the literal truth...
[2b] And claiming that it is or is not audible will be either an anecdotal claim or a matter of opinion.
[2c] (Note that I didn't specifically say that, in a given case, you are necessarily wrong... just that you will not find an actual measurement to substantiate the claim.
[2d] (I would NEVER make a claim beyond "statistically - most people can't hear it" or " I personally find it to be totally inaudible"...... )

1. Indeed. I read what you have written and refute it, if it's false. You seem to either just not read (or completely ignore) what's been written or read it with a view to figuring out how to misrepresent it, case in point:

2. A typical tactic you seem to employ. Part 1: Make-up a false statement, falsely ascribe it to me, then argue that the statement is false and therefore that I'm wrong/lying. Part 2: Completely ignore any response and just keep blindly repeating that the false statement (which you made-up) is false. In this specific case, I state that test gear designed to measure audio properties does not measure "how/if we may or may not hear/perceive them" and your reply is effectively, "find me a few test reports (which you've just stated don't exist)"! Tell you what, you find me some flying pigs and I'll find you the thing you're after that doesn't exist!
2a. That would be the literal truth BUT it would also be the literal truth to state that it's inaudible (if, of course, it is inaudible)!
2b. So let me get this straight, are you really saying that all the scientific audibility threshold tests carried out over the last century or so are "anecdotal claims or a matter of opinion"? That's funny, do you really not know what science is, or are you just attempting to pervert it for some marketing reason?
2c. How many times? Again: No, I will not find "an actual measurement" but I can find two actual measurements or in other cases I can find one actual measurement, which can then be compared to the threshold of audibility!
2d. Now that apparently is true, you indeed do seem to NEVER make a claim beyond "statistically - most people can't hear it" but that's presumably because of your marketing agenda. Of course I (and science) can and do make claims beyond that. For example, "that's 1,000 times below the threshold of audibility and is therefore inaudible" or "that's not even reproducible to start with, so obviously it must be inaudible"!!

As for #3....Again, however, until and unless you can provide concrete data about "what level of noise is always inaudible" then this remains an unsubstantiated claim.
[3.1] If I take a 20 Hz sine wave.... and add a 1 khz tone at 0.4% of its level.... which is at -50 dB.... the tone will almost certainly be audible. So... IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE... 0.5% THD will be clearly audible (1 kHz is a harmonic of 20 Hz and the total will be 0.4%).
As for #3a....Jitter sidebands are harmonically unrelated to the content itself...
MOST people I know seem to agree that, at any given level that may be audible, patterned noise that is harmonically unrelated to the musical content...
- is more audible than most forms of random noise
- is more audible than most forms of harmonic distortion or noise that is harmonically related
[3a.1] (because harmonics are naturally present in some quantities - so we tend to not notice them in small quantities - whereas our brains seem quite adept at noticing unrelated noises.)

3. Obviously that statement is just (marketing?) nonsense! Firstly, what do you think scientific hearing threshold tests are? And secondly, if the "level of noise" is so low it can't even be reproduced in the first place, you think that stating it's inaudible is "an unsubstantiated claim" do you?
3.1. Here we go again: That's not a "PARTICULAR" case, that's a completely hypothetical case that doesn't exist! How many music recordings can you name that contain nothing except a 20Hz sine wave? Secondly, how many DACs (for example) can you name that have jitter artefacts at -50dB? Are you saying that your DACs do? If so, they must be about the worst DACs ever released on the market! Why don't we take an actual "PARTICULAR" case, say a relatively cheap DAC where jitter artefacts peak at say -120dB, IE. Roughly 3,000 times lower in level than your hypothetical "case", which is certainly NOT audible (when listening to music at any reasonable level).

3a. Who are those "MOST people I [you] know", audiophile marketers or audiophiles suckered by them? Maybe you haven't noticed this is the science sub-forum? As is typical, you use a hypothetical situation that doesn't exist (so we're effectively back to your flying pigs and 1mW office system again)! Jitter artefacts (harmonically related or not) at say -120dB are NOT more audible than jitter artefacts at say -130dB, they have exactly the same audibility, which is "inaudible"! If I cut your head off, then you'll be dead. If I cut your head off and your arm off, will you be more dead or still just dead?
3a.1. No, our brains are completely inept at noticing unrelated noises that are inaudible!

Round and round with misrepresentations and fantasy "particular cases" we go, again and again! That tactic is a perversion of science and as you've demonstrated numerous times, doesn't work here in this sub-forum any way. So why do you keep trying it? What was it Einstein said about insanity (attrib.)? You think maybe it doesn't apply to you?

G

 

[gregorio]

1. What I said is what is best processing - which is none. [1a] I did not state it is universally applicable to every genre and type of music.
2. I was agreeing with person whose post I have quoted - @TheSonicTruth.
2.a Wrong. It is ALWAYS "initial recording" ( be it 2 track stereo or multitrack recording ), from which "master" is made at a later stage.
3. I should have put it more directly. I have been to enough studios to see and hear WHAT I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT IN A RECORDING.
[3a] Besides binaural, there are other 2 microphone ( or stereo microphone, if preffered it this way ) miking techniques that do not require any processing.
[3b] They require much more careful placement of both mics and musicians in order to be successful ...
[3c] As time is money, such recordings are more expensive than multitrack; musicians' fees are the same if they play to find the correct placement or for real - and finding that sweet spot can be VERY time consuming.
4. Ever since digital audio is about, musicians are panically avoiding ANY mistakes to be put on record - period. To the point some very big names are recording from bar 1 trough 5, from bar 3 trough 8, from 5 to 10, etc - overlapping a few bars, until the end of composition is finally reached. Voila - note by note perfection can be edited from such a recording.
4a. What can not be edited IN is the spirit lost in such grueling process; something only (preferably live) performance in one go can, under lucky circumstances, provide.

1. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat a false statement, it's still false!
1a. Yes you did! By not qualifying your statement, you are saying it is universally applicable.

2. No you weren't, that's NOT what he stated!
2a. That's clearly nonsense! If the master is "ALWAYS initial recording" then why/how can you make a master at a later stage, if you've already got the master at the initial recording stage?

3. Firstly, obviously you haven't and secondly, this isn't the "What analogsurvivor wants to see in a recording" forum.
3a. No mic'ing pattern or technique "requires" processing! We apply processing because it produces superior subjective results (for people/consumers apart from you, apparently).
3b. No, typically they are NOT successful, which is why typically we don't use only a stereo pair, we use mic'ing patterns proven to be more successful over the course of 70 odd years!!
3c. Of course! Positioning, setting-up and balancing say 40 mics takes less time and is therefore cheaper than setting up just 2, and spending days multi-track recording is quicker than just recording a single take.

4. Utter nonsense, they've been splicing together short takes since the early 1960's, long before digital even became available!
4a. That's false. "Spirit" or "feel" absolutely can be "edited in". Again, you seem to have pretty much no idea what's actually possible in a studio!

[5] There is only a handful of musicians today who CAN play well enough live not to be bothered by gross mistakes. And who are not intimidated to record Direct to Disk . One example I am personally familiar with ..
[6] For somebody claiming to be an old studio cat, understanding Direct to Disc workflow is obviously something they did not teach in whatever school you have been attending.
[6a] And , obviously, you did not find it required to investigate further on your own.
[6b] Nobody in the biz interested in quality enough to bother with the stringent requirements of D2D back in mid 70s could afford more than a single lathe ...
[7] I agree most of the recorded music from the last 6 decades could not have been produced in above described puristic manner.
[7b] And for precisely this reason "older than 60" and "native HiRez of today" are so treasured by discerning listeners.
[8] Genres as envisioned by the likes of Vangelis, would simply be impossible without those inventions and people who could put them to the use of music - yourself included. And I appreciate that and am thankful for those new capabilities with which to express the art in new way. None of the music by my beloved Frank Zappa ( with the possible exceptions of his recordings with LSO ) , mastered with such passion and precision by Mark Pinske, would have been possible - that would really be a terrible loss. As well as countless other musicians' good music.
[9] All I am saying that these new capabilities paid their very existence with reduced ultimately achievable sound quality.

5. And another beauty! As so often in the past, your best example turns out to be a recording so amateur and packed with "gross mistakes" it wouldn't even be acceptable as a student submission and would only be acceptable in a good commercial studio as a joke or an example of how NOT to record a performance!! And that's what you want in a recording is it? That's funny .... or it would be if you weren't seriously advocating it!

6. As there is so much to learn, there's generally not time to teach esoteric techniques that are almost never used because they're virtually always inferior.
6a. And obviously you have no idea what I've investigated and are just making-up lies!
6b. Yep, no one in the '70's or since is interested in quality, except you of course and the quality you're after is what, a joke and unacceptable even as a student submission?

7. Huh, is that some actual reality creeping into one of your posts?
7. No, apparently not, you had me worried for a second! Firstly, "native HiRez of today" is virtually all produced using exactly the same techniques we've been using on CD and analogue for years/decades and secondly, if you're talking about avid collectors of rare pressings or performances of specific musicians then yes but if (as you state/imply) you're talking about discerning listeners as far as audio fidelity is concerned then clearly that's utter nonsense. A 60 year old LP with better fidelity than modern digital is ridiculous!

8. How ironic, I've actually worked with Vangelis, the LSO and while not Zappa himself, I worked with his drummer a fair bit. And, "countless other musicians" covers pretty much every top/world class musician of the last 60 years or so!

9. As that's not true, then "all you are saying" is actually nonsense! So normal service is resumed

G

 

[KeithEmo]

Just for the record... the one thing I do apologize TO YOU for is possibly being confusing about who I am specifically responding TO.....
When I post a reply on the forum I am replying to something on the forum.... or to multiple things.... but not necessarily to one specific person.
Therefore, if I quoted your post, and part of my response is directed to it, that doesn't mean that I am responding only to it... and that was never my intent.

So, when I say something like "Show me the actual tests that back up that claim" I am mostly responding to BigShot....
The reason is that, every time *I* say something, that's what he says.... then he complains when I expect the same from him.
But, oddly, if *YOU* make a plain old claim he neglects to say the same thing.
In other words, when someone agrees with him, or when he's making the claim, he's willing to accept it sans-proof, but he refuses to extend that courtesy to myself, or to anyone who disagrees with him.

I also tend to look at things from the perspective of what I would call "pure science".... while you seem to base your observations on more what I would refer to as "practical science".
For example, if I were to ask YOU: "What would happen if I bang two blocks of metal together" you might well reasonably respond that we'll hear a loud noise.
In contrast, I would be careful to point out that, in most cases there would be a noise, but in some specific cases there might be a nuclear explosion - if the metal happened to be Plutonium.
(And, to be fair, it might be quite fair to assume there are no plutonium paper weights in your studio, but we might find one or two in an advanced physics lab - so which answer is reasonable depends on the context.)

So... to answer your question.....
"How many music recordings can you name that contain nothing except a 20Hz sine wave?"
The answer is......
"I can name at least one. I just recorded it using Adobe Audition. It's named KeithTest1.WAV and it contains 30 seconds of a 20 Hz sine wave."
(I'm planning to use it to test some subwoofers later.)

Note that nobody specified that it be "a commercial recording" or that you or I would find it pleasant to listen to...
However, my guess is that, if you were selecting a new mixing console, you wouldn't consider one that was unable to record a 20 Hz sine wave - just in case you ran into a recording of one.

The problem with measuring things like jitter artifacts, which I suspect *YOU* are well aware of, is that measurements don't always mean exactly what you think.
For example, let's assume that I have a distortion sideband that consists of a 1 kHz sine wave at -70 dB, and a noise floor that consists of unshaped white noise at an average level of -50 dB.
That -70 dB measurement is the amplitude of a sine wave... whereas the -50 dB measurement of the noise floor is an average, taken over a specified bandwidth, and averaged over some time.
I could easily produce a situation where the sine wave was louder than the noise floor - simply by limiting my measurement to a range of between 999 Hz to 1001 Hz.
That's how things like RADAR and SONAR are able to pick out specific return tones that are several dB below the noise floor.

I've seen tests that show that humans can also distinguish pure tones whose level is below the noise floor.
How well specific types of noise mask specific other sounds is actually quite a complex science... and is the basis for both lossy compression and noise shaping.
(And, since jitter sidebands are generally not harmonically related to the source content, and may fall at frequencies far above it, we should not assume they will be masked by it.)
It's also worth noting that, while you certainly CAN measure the actual peak level of a specific noise sideband, most of the spectrum plots we see published are smoothed... and so do NOT show the true peak level.

Again, please note that I would cheerfully agree that "it's quite likely that the jitter sidebands produced by most DACs are inaudible or mostly inaudible".... I simply would not be willing to state it as an absolute certainty.

As for Einstein quotes......
One of my favorites (at least attributed to him) is: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

1. Indeed. I read what you have written and refute it, if it's false. You seem to either just not read (or completely ignore) what's been written or read it with a view to figuring out how to misrepresent it, case in point:

2. A typical tactic you seem to employ. Part 1: Make-up a false statement, falsely ascribe it to me, then argue that the statement is false and therefore that I'm wrong/lying. Part 2: Completely ignore any response and just keep blindly repeating that the false statement (which you made-up) is false. In this specific case, I state that test gear designed to measure audio properties does not measure "how/if we may or may not hear/perceive them" and your reply is effectively, "find me a few test reports (which you've just stated don't exist)"! Tell you what, you find me some flying pigs and I'll find you the thing you're after that doesn't exist!
2a. That would be the literal truth BUT it would also be the literal truth to state that it's inaudible (if, of course, it is inaudible)!
2b. So let me get this straight, are you really saying that all the scientific audibility threshold tests carried out over the last century or so are "anecdotal claims or a matter of opinion"? That's funny, do you really not know what science is, or are you just attempting to pervert it for some marketing reason?
2c. How many times? Again: No, I will not find "an actual measurement" but I can find two actual measurements or in other cases I can find one actual measurement, which can then be compared to the threshold of audibility!
2d. Now that apparently is true, you indeed do seem to NEVER make a claim beyond "statistically - most people can't hear it" but that's presumably because of your marketing agenda. Of course I (and science) can and do make claims beyond that. For example, "that's 1,000 times below the threshold of audibility and is therefore inaudible" or "that's not even reproducible to start with, so obviously it must be inaudible"!!



3. Obviously that statement is just (marketing?) nonsense! Firstly, what do you think scientific hearing threshold tests are? And secondly, if the "level of noise" is so low it can't even be reproduced in the first place, you think that stating it's inaudible is "an unsubstantiated claim" do you?
3.1. Here we go again: That's not a "PARTICULAR" case, that's a completely hypothetical case that doesn't exist! How many music recordings can you name that contain nothing except a 20Hz sine wave? Secondly, how many DACs (for example) can you name that have jitter artefacts at -50dB? Are you saying that your DACs do? If so, they must be about the worst DACs ever released on the market! Why don't we take an actual "PARTICULAR" case, say a relatively cheap DAC where jitter artefacts peak at say -120dB, IE. Roughly 3,000 times lower in level than your hypothetical "case", which is certainly NOT audible (when listening to music at any reasonable level).

3a. Who are those "MOST people I [you] know", audiophile marketers or audiophiles suckered by them? Maybe you haven't noticed this is the science sub-forum? As is typical, you use a hypothetical situation that doesn't exist (so we're effectively back to your flying pigs and 1mW office system again)! Jitter artefacts (harmonically related or not) at say -120dB are NOT more audible than jitter artefacts at say -130dB, they have exactly the same audibility, which is "inaudible"! If I cut your head off, then you'll be dead. If I cut your head off and your arm off, will you be more dead or still just dead?
3a.1. No, our brains are completely inept at noticing unrelated noises that are inaudible!

Round and round with misrepresentations and fantasy "particular cases" we go, again and again! That tactic is a perversion of science and as you've demonstrated numerous times, doesn't work here in this sub-forum any way. So why do you keep trying it? What was it Einstein said about insanity (attrib.)? You think maybe it doesn't apply to you?

G

 

[bigshot]

Is anyone finding this conversation useful? I sure hope so.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Again, please note that I would cheerfully agree that "it's quite likely that the jitter sidebands produced by most DACs are inaudible or mostly inaudible".... I simply would not be willing to state it as an absolute certainty.

Noted. Thanks. Also, there might be a person on the planet who can run a 2 minute mile. Let's not state that it's not possible with absolute certainty. That would be presumptuous.

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/08/demo-musings-lets-listen-to-some-jitter.html

 

[gregorio]

[1] In other words, when someone agrees with him [bigshot], or when he's making the claim, he's willing to accept it sans-proof, but he refuses to extend that courtesy to myself, or to anyone who disagrees with him.
[2] I also tend to look at things from the perspective of what I would call "pure science".... while you seem to base your observations on more what I would refer to as "practical science".
[2a] For example, if I were to ask YOU: "What would happen if I bang two blocks of metal together" you might well reasonably respond that we'll hear a loud noise.
In contrast, I would be careful to point out that, in most cases there would be a noise, but in some specific cases there might be a nuclear explosion - if the metal happened to be Plutonium.
(And, to be fair, it might be quite fair to assume there are no plutonium paper weights in your studio, but we might find one or two in an advanced physics lab - so which answer is reasonable depends on the context.)
[3] So... to answer your question....."How many music recordings can you name that contain nothing except a 20Hz sine wave?" The answer is......"I can name at least one. I just recorded it using Adobe Audition. It's named KeithTest1.WAV and it contains 30 seconds of a 20 Hz sine wave."

1. No that is NOT true, it's just yet another misrepresentation (sigh!). The BIG difference is that what bigshot claims is almost always in agreement with the science (so it is NOT "sans-proof") and on those relatively rare occasions when it isn't in agreement with the science then I or someone else pick him up on it, request some reliable evidence and refute his claim if he doesn't provide it. You get exactly the same courtesy, however, you are "picked up on it" far more often because you contradict the science far more often!

2. That is indeed a serious issue, because it's just yet another typical audiophile marketing ploy! "Science" is already defined, you do NOT get to redefine it to suit your (marketing?) agenda. And worse still, you definitely do NOT get to redefine it in such a way that's pretty much the exact opposite of what science actually means! What you often argue is not just hypothetical situations that can't/don't exist but hypothetical situations which themselves contradict science. For example, can we state that: If a pig had wings, plus the skeleton, musculature and other attributes necessary to generate flight, then we would have a flying pig? No, we can't! If such a hypothetical creature actually existed, it wouldn't be classified by science as a pig, it would be some other class/genus/family of animal. Our statement would NOT be "pure science", it wouldn't be any sort of science, it would be "pure" nonsense! ...
2a. This isn't a nuclear physics forum and I'm certainly no expert on the subject but if we assume that I'm correct, then I don't need to make-up my own nonsense example, you've done it for me! Firstly of course, our two pieces of metal would NEVER "happen to be plutonium". Except in trace amounts, plutonium doesn't exist in nature, it has to be manufactured and when it is, it's probably about the most controlled metal on the planet. So, we've got a hypothetical that's nonsense to start with but there's even more! Even if it were possible, just banging together two pieces of plutonium wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion. Nuclear bombs are high precision devices that use a shaped explosive to "implode" the plutonium so the released neutrons sustain a chain reaction rather than just escaping into the atmosphere, they are not just simple devices that bangs two pieces of plutonium together. So in fact, you would indeed still just get a loud noise (plus probably a fatal dose of radiation). Your example is an assertion which isn't even true within the confines of your own (effectively impossible) hypothetical situation! This is all so ridiculous, nonsensical, false and anti-science that I struggle to find a term that does it full justice. The best I can come up with is "UTTER NONSENSE" but you've come up with a different term: "PURE SCIENCE", which of course leaves me struggling for another term, one which does full justice to just how much you are attempting to pervert the word "science"!!

3. "The answer is ..." - A false assertion, what a surprise! A 30 sec file containing nothing but a 20Hz sine wave is a test signal recording, NOT a music recording. So in fact you've failed to answer the question, another surprise!

[4] The problem with measuring things like jitter artifacts, which I suspect *YOU* are well aware of, is that measurements don't always mean exactly what you think.
[4a] For example, let's assume that I have a distortion sideband that consists of a 1 kHz sine wave at -70 dB, and a noise floor that consists of unshaped white noise at an average level of -50 dB.
[4b] That -70 dB measurement is the amplitude of a sine wave... whereas the -50 dB measurement of the noise floor is an average, taken over a specified bandwidth, and averaged over some time.
[4c] I could easily produce a situation where the sine wave was louder than the noise floor - simply by limiting my measurement to a range of between 999 Hz to 1001 Hz.
[5] I've seen tests that show that humans can also distinguish pure tones whose level is below the noise floor.
[5a] And, since jitter sidebands are generally not harmonically related to the source content, and may fall at frequencies far above it, we should not assume they will be masked by it.
[5b] It's also worth noting that, while you certainly CAN measure the actual peak level of a specific noise sideband, most of the spectrum plots we see published are smoothed... and so do NOT show the true peak level.
[6] As for Einstein quotes...... One of my favorites (at least attributed to him) is: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

4. Oh good, another circular argument based on fallacy/misrepresentation and a nonsense hypothetical.
4a. Here's our nonsense hypothetical. There are no commercial music recordings that have a -50dB white noise floor, unless you're truncating to 9 bits with TDPF dither, know many of those do you? Nor any with nothing but but a -70dB jitter sideband (and our hypothetical -50dB white noise), nor any DACs which produce a -70dB jitter sidebands!!
4b. OK, let's run with your nonsense hypothetical.
4c. Sure, so? What you appear to be arguing is that *YOU* are maybe ignorant of what the measurements mean. In which case that's obviously an issue of your ignorance, not an issue with the science or objective measurements. Or, are you saying that if we limit your measurement (to 999-1001Hz) but don't state it's been limited, for example, effectively some marketing lie/omission?

5. Very true, I've tested this myself, numerous times. BUT it entirely depends on the frequency of the pure tone and the precise nature of the noise floor. In other words, there are a particular set of conditions required in order for a pure tone to be audible below the noise floor. Therefore the question becomes; when are those conditions met? The answer, in the case of DAC jitter artefacts and listening to commercial music recordings (at a reasonable level) is never!
5a. We do NOT assume that jitter sidebands will be masked by the fundamental and harmonic frequencies of the music content, we assume they will either be masked by the noise floor (which of course comprises all frequencies) or simply not reproduced in the first place. And of course we don't only rely on this assumption, there have been countless controlled listening tests which verify it.
5b. Which is irrelevant (effectively a misrepresentation!) because we're talking about audibility and we do not hear true peak level, we hear loudness (or lack of it) which isn't directly related true peak level.

6. Nowhere do I recall Einstein saying "Everything should me made as ridiculous as possible and then base some false assertion on it" but if he did, wouldn't that have to be your absolute favourite?

G

 

[KeithEmo]

I'm still waiting to see a list of the "countless tests" that you and BigShot are privy to... but the rest of us are not.
(And please make sure they meet his requirements for "a real test and not just anecdotal evidence".)

I do apologize... that was a low shot.
I actually believe that you may have conducted some tests to confirm this yourself....
Or that you even have enough experience to make a generalization that is usually true....
It's only BigShot who would insist that, since they weren't published, or peer reviewed, your tests are meaningless and we should ignore them.

However, your assertion is false..... about the metals.
Nowhere does the term "two blocks of metal" specify "common metals" nor "metals that occur in nature".
I simply asserted that, under some circumstances, when you bang two blocks of metal together, you get a fission explosion.
Oddly, yet again, in one sentence you accuse me of being absurd, but in the next sentence you concede that I'm technically correct....
(And I don't at all disagree with you that the circumstances required for that result would be relatively uncommon.)

However, there have in fact been several recent cases, one or two with tragic consequences, where someone incorrectly assumed that the chunk of metal they found WASN'T highly radioactive.
One was a fellow who made a keychain out of a piece of metal he found in a junkyard... it looked like a fish weight but turned out to be the Cobalt 60 slug from an X-Ray machine...
(He ended up dead a few days later - thanks to his assumption that "it must be an ordinary piece of metal" - and the resulting lethal case of radiation poisoning...... )
Also, humorously (or not), I read once that, when looking through some old file folders in the basement of the pentagon, a brick of plutonium was found, stuffed between two documents in folders.
(It had come from the desk of one of the scientists at the Manhattan Project... and gone unnoticed when his office was packed up after the project was closed.)
(Plutonium itself, in small quantities, is not especially radioactive, and can be handled more or less safely.... )
However, you are MOSTLY correct, and assumptions like that usually don't kill anyone.

I'm also pretty sure that Einstein was one of the guys who was in favor of "banging blocks of metal together to see what would happen"....
(He surely would have been offended if you'd suggested that it was an absurd idea.)
And the US government spent quite a lot of money and effort accumulating enough plutonium and enriched uranium to try it out....
(And, yes, as it turns out, in most cases, unless you bang them together quite violently, and hold them together for a short period of time, all you'll likely get is a loud noise and a fatal case of radiation poisoning.)

Real science is the part where you do experiments to test the theory...
Suggesting that we needn't consider the condition "because most people will never see it" is really closer to some sort of "consumer reporting"...
(Which is an extremely useful thing... but not exactly science.)

Also, from the title of this area of the forum, I was hoping this forum might be a place to discuss science....

As in....
- Gee, I think I observed something....
- Here are some theories about what it might be....
- Let's find out....

Instead, as far as I can see, every time anyone even suggests something like that....
The result is that they're told that: "We shouldn't waste our time because we all know they must be imagining it."
(Perhaps we should change the name from "TESTING audiophile claims and myths" to "DISPROVING audiophile claims and myths" or even "DEBUNKING audiophile claims and myths"... )
Although, honestly, I would find that rather boring...

Incidentally, just to put BigShot's paranoia to rest, if you check out the jitter specs on Emotiva's DACs and other products (that's the company I work for).....
You'll see that we don't even bother to publish jitter specs....
(So I guess that they really aren't "yet another marketing ploy used by all evil audio companies to trick unsuspecting consumers into buying stuff" after all...)

1. No that is NOT true, it's just yet another misrepresentation (sigh!). The BIG difference is that what bigshot claims is almost always in agreement with the science (so it is NOT "sans-proof") and on those relatively rare occasions when it isn't in agreement with the science then I or someone else pick him up on it, request some reliable evidence and refute his claim if he doesn't provide it. You get exactly the same courtesy, however, you are "picked up on it" far more often because you contradict the science far more often!

2. That is indeed a serious issue, because it's just yet another typical audiophile marketing ploy! "Science" is already defined, you do NOT get to redefine it to suit your (marketing?) agenda. And worse still, you definitely do NOT get to redefine it in such a way that's pretty much the exact opposite of what science actually means! What you often argue is not just hypothetical situations that can't/don't exist but hypothetical situations which themselves contradict science. For example, can we state that: If a pig had wings, plus the skeleton, musculature and other attributes necessary to generate flight, then we would have a flying pig? No, we can't! If such a hypothetical creature actually existed, it wouldn't be classified by science as a pig, it would be some other class/genus/family of animal. Our statement would NOT be "pure science", it wouldn't be any sort of science, it would be "pure" nonsense! ...
2a. This isn't a nuclear physics forum and I'm certainly no expert on the subject but if we assume that I'm correct, then I don't need to make-up my own nonsense example, you've done it for me! Firstly of course, our two pieces of metal would NEVER "happen to be plutonium". Except in trace amounts, plutonium doesn't exist in nature, it has to be manufactured and when it is, it's probably about the most controlled metal on the planet. So, we've got a hypothetical that's nonsense to start with but there's even more! Even if it were possible, just banging together two pieces of plutonium wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion. Nuclear bombs are high precision devices that use a shaped explosive to "implode" the plutonium so the released neutrons sustain a chain reaction rather than just escaping into the atmosphere, they are not just simple devices that bangs two pieces of plutonium together. So in fact, you would indeed still just get a loud noise (plus probably a fatal dose of radiation). Your example is an assertion which isn't even true within the confines of your own (effectively impossible) hypothetical situation! This is all so ridiculous, nonsensical, false and anti-science that I struggle to find a term that does it full justice. The best I can come up with is "UTTER NONSENSE" but you've come up with a different term: "PURE SCIENCE", which of course leaves me struggling for another term, one which does full justice to just how much you are attempting to pervert the word "science"!!

3. "The answer is ..." - A false assertion, what a surprise! A 30 sec file containing nothing but a 20Hz sine wave is a test signal recording, NOT a music recording. So in fact you've failed to answer the question, another surprise!



4. Oh good, another circular argument based on fallacy/misrepresentation and a nonsense hypothetical.
4a. Here's our nonsense hypothetical. There are no commercial music recordings that have a -50dB white noise floor, unless you're truncating to 9 bits with TDPF dither, know many of those do you? Nor any with nothing but but a -70dB jitter sideband (and our hypothetical -50dB white noise), nor any DACs which produce a -70dB jitter sidebands!!
4b. OK, let's run with your nonsense hypothetical.
4c. Sure, so? What you appear to be arguing is that *YOU* are maybe ignorant of what the measurements mean. In which case that's obviously an issue of your ignorance, not an issue with the science or objective measurements. Or, are you saying that if we limit your measurement (to 999-1001Hz) but don't state it's been limited, for example, effectively some marketing lie/omission?

5. Very true, I've tested this myself, numerous times. BUT it entirely depends on the frequency of the pure tone and the precise nature of the noise floor. In other words, there are a particular set of conditions required in order for a pure tone to be audible below the noise floor. Therefore the question becomes; when are those conditions met? The answer, in the case of DAC jitter artefacts and listening to commercial music recordings (at a reasonable level) is never!
5a. We do NOT assume that jitter sidebands will be masked by the fundamental and harmonic frequencies of the music content, we assume they will either be masked by the noise floor (which of course comprises all frequencies) or simply not reproduced in the first place. And of course we don't only rely on this assumption, there have been countless controlled listening tests which verify it.
5b. Which is irrelevant (effectively a misrepresentation!) because we're talking about audibility and we do not hear true peak level, we hear loudness (or lack of it) which isn't directly related true peak level.

6. Nowhere do I recall Einstein saying "Everything should me made as ridiculous as possible and then base some false assertion on it" but if he did, wouldn't that have to be your absolute favourite?

G

 

[bigshot]

You're talking to yourself.

 

[KeithEmo]

Nah....

But obviously you have little interest in hearing anything that isn't a ringing endorsement of your opinions and viewpoints.
(Now I know where that sign from my office that said: "Those of you who think you know everything are very annoying to those of us who actually do" ended up... )

You're talking to yourself.

 

[bfreedma]

How did we get here? Better keep those cups from banging into each other...

 

[bigshot]

Say goodnight, Gracie.