tuga
Major Contributor
For reference, a recording of Berlioz' Lélio Op.14b by the hr-Sinfonieorchester Frankfurt & Eliahu Inbal (Denon 1989):
Yes, I listen to music in my living room and there are always noises even though mostly at very low levels. Street noise from outside, hum of the fridge nearby, louder sound of Air Con when its on, etc. For such an environment, I just wonder at what level does further improvement in SINAD become useless for my listening. It must be lower than 120.It's safe to say that in this modern era, we have reached a point that competently engineered DACs and amps exist for under $1000 that offer more than adequate performance because any measurable shortcoming is below the threshold of audibility due to real world noise floors masking these issues. Paying a premium for more expensive products may improve these measurements, but the listener will be unable to detect these improvements unless they (1) significantly reduce their noise floor in a sound insulated environment or (2) listen to single tone sign waves in lieu of real content.
This is a 28 page thread on exactly that topic. The answers are all in the threadYes, I listen to music in my living room and there are always noises even though mostly at very low levels. Street noise from outside, hum of the fridge nearby, louder sound of Air Con when its on, etc. For such an environment, I just wonder at what level does further improvement in SINAD become useless for my listening. It must be lower than 120.
Max
are these SNR measurments at 50mv ?
or it's just the maximum SNR that this device can output ?
After 28 pages @Spocko nails it best.It's safe to say that in this modern era, we have reached a point that competently engineered DACs and amps exist for under $1000 that offer more than adequate performance because any measurable shortcoming is below the threshold of audibility due to real world noise floors masking these issues. Paying a premium for more expensive products may improve these measurements, but the listener will be unable to detect these improvements unless they (1) significantly reduce their noise floor in a sound insulated environment or (2) listen to single tone sign waves in lieu of real content.
Another factor to consider is the fact that most real-life music fragments are not just sums of long-running perfect sinusoids with unchanging amplitudes. Changes in amplitude of 5% from one sinusoid cycle to another are quite common. A sinusoid abruptly going from zero to its max in half of its cycle are common in acoustic music and in not overly processed mixes of other genres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysisAnother factor to consider is the fact that most real-life music fragments are not just sums of long-running perfect sinusoids with unchanging amplitudes. Changes in amplitude of 5% from one sinusoid cycle to another are quite common. A sinusoid abruptly going from zero to its max in half of its cycle are common in acoustic music and in not overly processed mixes of other genres.
Several writers on this thread already alluded to the fact that distortions along the sound reproduction chain "stack up". Sometimes in simple ways, e.g. like several white noise generators do. Sometimes in much more complicated ways. An otherwise insignificant distortion in one element of the chain may push the stack of distortions as a whole over the audibility threshold.
Another factor to consider is the fact that most real-life music fragments are not just sums of long-running perfect sinusoids with unchanging amplitudes. Changes in amplitude of 5% from one sinusoid cycle to another are quite common. A sinusoid abruptly going from zero to its max in half of its cycle are common in acoustic music and in not overly processed mixes of other genres.
And the third factor is non-linearity of human hearing system itself. It serves as a sound reproduction chain element with a significant added distortion, especially at low and high sound levels. The nature and level of added distortions varies among humans, as well as with particular human's age, health condition, level of oxygen and certain essential nutrients in his or her blood, degree of fatigue, and so on.
Consequently, what is traditionally considered "low enough" THD, or "high enough" SINAD may or may not be in fact sufficient for a particular listener striving to enjoy a particular piece of music. Moreover, the quantifiable measures pertinent to one sinusoid (THD), or a set of stable sinusoids (SINAD) may not be as applicable to a particular real life music fragment, which is neither singular nor stable in its harmonic representation.
So, if you happen to assemble a sound reproduction chain that is sonically transparent for you on all the genres of music you listen to, be happy with it, and here I agree with those saying that overpaying for replacing the chain components with exotics makes no sense at this point. If, however, the chain is not yet transparent to you on some music fragments, small reductions in distortions along the chain may be worth paying for.
Importantly, the DFT is a pure linear transform, and can represent any non-infinite input.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysis#Discrete-time_Fourier_transform_(DTFT)
"general functions may be represented or approximated by sums of simpler trigonometric functions"
I've corrected the link, didn't want to link any particular case actually, I has thinking generally. Right, so in this case, a linear transformation from one discrete C space to another, a change of base.Importantly, the DFT is a pure linear transform, and can represent any non-infinite input.
You can take any real signal and model it with a variety of sine and cosine waves of constant amplitude. That may sound odd, but it's entirely true.
Any sine wave that's changing amplitude does not have only ONE frequency present. There is a sum of sines creating such a waveform.
As to "sonic transparency" inside of a two channel signal, that is pretty much impossible, for reasons entirely outside the "reproduction chain",rather to do with the actual infomrmation present in an original soundfield.
Yes, I agree that distortions in a decently-priced low-power electronics (e.g. DACs) are all but sorted out by now. Mainstream high-power electronic devices (e.g. amplifiers) are still dicey: you'd need to spend significantly more to buy something well-behaved on a variety of music genres. As to the speakers and headhones, most of them, even supposedly professional or audiophile ones, are still distorting wildly. I believe we agree on all of the above.I have the impression that you are grasping at straw.
Put your waveform generator on the bench and create the magical waveform you are talking about.
Take that wave form that you have invented and play it through the amplifier connected to a test resistor. Test the result with your O’scope or analyzer. The test waveform will pass through the electronics untouched.
The bulk of the potential distortion comes from the speakers in your system.
In fact Linkwitz did a lot of testing of speaker distortion with impulse waveforms. Take a look at https://www.linkwitzlab.com .
Thanks DT
One problem here is that one can create a number of such models. For instance, by changing sampling rate and transformation window width. Or, in mathematical terms, by switching the orthogonal base of functions over which the linear transform operates.
Chill. This guy pops up every few months, wordily demonstrates that he doesn't understand Fourier analysis, then disappears to wait for the next round. It's useless to try to explain it to him- we all tried nicely, over and over. Pure crank, not worth the keystrokes.This is all pointless. There are an infinite number of potential basis sets. None of this defeats your rather odd statement about "not made of continuous sine waves" since INCONTROVERTABLY BY YOUR COMMENT QUOTED HERE INDEED it is true that ANY REAL, FINITE SIGNAL CAN BE DECOMPOSED INTO A SET OF SINE WAVES.
You suggested it wasn't possible, but you just proved it was. Goodness.
noted! One wonders if one can teach someone else while he's having an argument.Chill. This guy pops up every few months, wordily demonstrates that he doesn't understand Fourier analysis, then disappears to wait for the next round. It's useless to try to explain it to him- we all tried nicely, over and over. Pure crank, not worth the keystrokes.
This is all pointless. There are an infinite number of potential basis sets. None of this defeats your rather odd statement about "not made of continuous sine waves" since INCONTROVERTABLY BY YOUR COMMENT QUOTED HERE INDEED it is true that ANY REAL, FINITE SIGNAL CAN BE DECOMPOSED INTO A SET OF SINE WAVES.
You suggested it wasn't possible, but you just proved it was. Goodness.