Thanks, although it’s a standard test that countless engineers have been doing for well over a century. It’s a test that’s hardly ever mentioned in audiophile marketing or in the wider audiophile community though, as it contradicts one of the most common audiophile marketing myths. A null test measures everything, the entire difference between two signals and therefore contradicts the fallacy that everything cannot be measured.
A null test, just like virtually all tests/measurements is a technical thing, it measures if two signals are identical and if not, it produces a difference file, which is a signal containing everything/the entirety of the difference. Whether that difference is inaudible or not depends on the amount of difference between the two input signals and where in the frequency spectrum that difference is.
That common audiophile epithet not only doesn’t make sense to me but amazes me that so many years after it first appeared, it still suckers audiophiles. The appreciation of (harmonic/melodic) music requires our ears/perception of sound to be fooled and in order to get any sense of soundstage when listening to a recording also requires that our ears be fooled. So audiophiles should just trust something that they’re relying on being fooled?! This is the same as saying that when looking at an optical illusion or an illusionist performing a “magic” trick, you should just trust your eyes. Apart from maybe a young child, who would actually believe that to be true?
The only time we can trust our ears when listening to reproduced audio recordings is when making determinations/judgements of personal preference, because there is no other way apart from trusting our ears to determine that. However, that’s hardly definitive because of course some people can love the exact same recording that some others might hate and that can even be true of the same person, as our preferences evolve/change over time.
G
Last edited:
