[Poll] Is no-distortion really better than any distortion?

[Jimbob54]

Sheesh. I said it was a guess. Trolling much?

Probably needs a poll of the poll population

 

[lashto]

Sheesh. I said it was a guess. Trolling much?

You made a guess, I made a guess, pkane made a guess, jimbo made a guess ...
A massive troll invasion indeed

 

[Zensō]

You made a guess, I made a guess, pkane made a guess ...
A massive troll invasion indeed

Which shows how worthless the poll was.

 

[KeithPhantom]

From what I know about statistics, you are using categorical data to measure preference. It will not be scientific to use this poll as evidence of the causation of anything. Also, it will be subject to the most basic hypothesis testing even before considering causation, and that only helps us to get closer to prove correlation.

 

[pkane]

@pkane would you care to post a result interpretation? Even if you think the poll/options sucked.

After all, you are ASR's foremost expert on HD. Or, at the very least, you generated more HD than anyone around here could ever dream of

I'm by far not the "foremost expert on HD"

My response to the first "100% Right" answer is that this depends on what your goals are. Certainly from an engineering perspective, lower distortion is better. From a personal enjoyment perspective, there's nothing that says that I must enjoy only the most pure, the most undistorted sound. Intellectually, that's what I strive for, but then I apply a room correction curve that I enjoy and find pleasing.

The "somewhat right" and "somewhat wrong" to me are the same answer, and since I can't pick both of them, I didn't pick either.

This left the final answer, "100% Wrong", which, by process of elimination is the correct answer But, it also makes sense, since the poll statement of "Is no-distortion (or below audible limits) always better for music playback than any distortion ?!" is wrong, simply because the word "always" is in it, and as stated before, it's not always true.

 

[bobbooo]

I'm by far not the "foremost expert on HD"

My response to the first "100% Right" answer is that this depends on what your goals are. Certainly from an engineering perspective, lower distortion is better. From a personal enjoyment perspective, there's nothing that says that I must enjoy only the most pure, the most undistorted sound. Intellectually, that's what I strive for, but then I apply a room correction curve that I enjoy and find pleasing.

The "somewhat right" and "somewhat wrong" to me are the same answer, and since I can't pick both of them, I didn't pick either.

This left the final answer, "100% Wrong", which, by process of elimination is the correct answer But, it also makes sense, since the poll statement of "Is no-distortion (or below audible limits) always better for music playback than any distortion ?!" is wrong, simply because the word "always" is in it, and as stated before, it's not always true.

As I said in this post in reference to James Johnston's definition, distortion should refer to nonlinear modifications of the signal. I don't think many people would consider a room correction curve as distortion in common parlance either.

 

[Robin L]

Of course the question is begged---who has heard music reproduction devoid of distortion? Unless one has heard such [mythical] gear, answers are not possible.

 

[bobbooo]

Of course the question is begged---who has heard music reproduction devoid of distortion? Unless one has heard such [mythical] gear, answers are not possible.

Not zero distortion, but "below audible limits"? Sure we have.

 

[Jimbob54]

Of course the question is begged---who has heard music reproduction devoid of distortion? Unless one has heard such [mythical] gear, answers are not possible.

Was the thrust of my "don't know" response

Edit, actually I came the other way. I know I have dacs and amps with no audible distortion, not as sure about headphones /speakers but I don't know the measurements of all my kit. Suspect some are quite distorted but audibly so? And do I prefer them?

 

[lashto]

I'm by far not the "foremost expert on HD"

My response to the first "100% Right" answer is that this depends on what your goals are. Certainly from an engineering perspective, lower distortion is better. From a personal enjoyment perspective, there's nothing that says that I must enjoy only the most pure, the most undistorted sound. Intellectually, that's what I strive for, but then I apply a room correction curve that I enjoy and find pleasing.

The "somewhat right" and "somewhat wrong" to me are the same answer, and since I can't pick both of them, I didn't pick either.

This left the final answer, "100% Wrong", which, by process of elimination is the correct answer But, it also makes sense, since the poll statement of "Is no-distortion (or below audible limits) always better for music playback than any distortion ?!" is wrong, simply because the word "always" is in it, and as stated before, it's not always true.

Interesting point about room correction as distortion. With that assumption, "no distortion" has zero chances for the "100% right" medal . Wonder if anyone did vote using that assumption.
Technically, roomC is distortion (altered signal) but I tend to not consider it so. Same for EQ. Just a personal 'gray' choice. Like many other things about D.
'
The diff between somewhat right/wrong is not particularly interesting (for me). They are both just "not 100%". Might be useful to quantify that diff but that would be a different poll.

And excellent voting choice. Same as everyone else's

 

[pkane]

As I said in this post in reference to James Johnston's definition, distortion should refer to nonlinear modifications of the signal. I don't think many people would consider a room correction curve as distortion in common parlance either.

My point wasn't that room curve adds non-linear distortion products, but that an altered reproduction isn't necessarily bad, and is often preferred.

 

[lashto]

Of course the question is begged---who has heard music reproduction devoid of distortion? Unless one has heard such [mythical] gear, answers are not possible.

It's 'begged' in many other ways too.
And generally there are no perfect Qs. Or answers

 

[bobbooo]

My point wasn't that room curve adds non-linear distortion products, but that an altered reproduction isn't necessarily bad, and is often preferred.

Yes I understood that. My point was that the poll question was specifically about distortion, not more generally 'altered reproduction'. Room correction curves come under the latter, but not the former, under both a technical definition of distortion and in common usage of the term. Of course, it should have been specifically defined at the outset of this poll to avoid confusion like this, which has evidently affected the results in favor of the '100% wrong' answer for some people.

 

[lashto]

From what I know about statistics, you are using categorical data to measure preference. It will not be scientific to use this poll as evidence of the causation of anything. Also, it will be subject to the most basic hypothesis testing even before considering causation, and that only helps us to get closer to prove correlation.

It's just an opinion poll about D. It's NOT supposed to prove anything about D, just gather opinions.

But it can definitely be used as "evidense of anything". Scientifically too.
E.g. for the fact that many people are very passionate about D. Borderline fanatic even

 

[Bazz]

Speakers have lots of distortion especially ones with cheaper passive crossovers. Digital distortion can sound harsh, probably why some highly compressed digital sounds awful, I can live with some analogue distortion.

 

[Robin L]

It's 'begged' in many other ways too. And generally there are no perfect Qs. Or answers

Right now, I'm listening to I-Tunes Apple Lossless files via a cheap [Acer Aspire 5] laptop into Topping E/L 30 combo, finally Drop 6XXs. And the level of distortion is lower that what I'm used to, what I've heard before. I am really used to a lot of distortion artifacts, having listened to so much obviously compromised gear all my life. But I also know that the gear I'm now listening to so happily is still distorting. As far as I can tell, all transducers audibly distort.

 

[bobbooo]

As far as I can tell, all transducers audibly distort.

Nope, plenty don't distort audibly. In fact, just $5 will get you the Sony MH755 earphones which don't:

 

[Robin L]

Nope, plenty don't distort audibly. In fact, just $5 will get you the Sony MH755 earphones which don't:

That sounds like utter nonsense.

 

[lashto]

.. As far as I can tell, all transducers audibly distort.

I'd say so too.
There are hundreds of blind tests where people could not diff between amps/dacs/etc but I am not aware of a single test where people failed to ABX two transducers. Maybe there are some!?
Transducers have HD spikes at around -50db in the most sensitive ranges. Or even worse. Plus audible diffs in directivity, FR, etc. Hard to believe that any two transducers will sound similar enough to be confused.

 

[bobbooo]

That sounds like utter nonsense.

Pray tell, which part is 'utter nonsense'? Here are the Sony MH755's full measurements, and here is a detailed description of the site's IEC-compliant testing methodology.