audiophile optimizer?

[fas42]

No, we can't all be The Chosen One, able to bend audio reality to our will using skills too mystic to be understood by mere mortals.

The rest of us ungifted troglodytes have to deal with measurements.

There are a few around - Dennis (Blumlein88) commented on the difference between his big panels, and the little JBLs, in terms of what one is pursuing. The only reality bending that's needed is to persist with refining the system, rather than giving up at some point - if you fall into the "that's good enough!" hole every time you try this sort of exercise then it's almost guaranteed to never happen ... why I got my first dose of "good sound" is that I kept experimenting, experimenting, experimenting - most things moved the quality forward, so that encouraged me to continue ... until a burst of convincing sound popped out, completely unexpectedly.

If you seriously want to know the answer to this for the transmission of digital audio (and not just flap your head about it) the test is called The Mask Test. Any device passing it will transparent for purposes of digital audio.

Digital remaining digital is always fine - but at some point, called the DAC, the signal goes into a hybrid world - and something called a "digital" line is not really that any more - it's taken to have analogue characteristics, and that's where things get interesting ...

 

[fas42]

Measurements are not pass fail. They show data. We compare that data to results of listening tests that show threshold of detection by listeners. That analysis shows that our measured response is usually way, way better than we can hear in those listening tests.

Furthermore, there is little out there to show that people can hear what cannot be measured. All attempts by advocates have failed when everything is removed other than the sound the equipment makes.

For these reason the position you hold is not valid unless you can show new data we don't know about.

Amir, yes, data is always accumulated - but dealing with a subset of everything is not telling the whole. Were the listeners specifically sensitive to hearing certain artifacts? Were they allowed to listen to musical clips they were very familiar with? Were they allowed to adjust the volume as they liked, to help them pick up artifacts? What were the qualities of the equipment being used - just saying something like, it was adequate for the job, is ridiculous when things are so critical in this area.

 

[fas42]

View attachment 4217

Offerings as appeasement not acceptable!

 

[watchnerd]

There are a few around - Dennis (Blumlein88) commented on the difference between his big panels, and the little JBLs, in terms of what one is pursuing.

As I said, transducers are a different matter. We have a long way to go before they're a solved problem. This thread is about computers.

Digital remaining digital is always fine - but at some point, called the DAC, the signal goes into a hybrid world - and something called a "digital" line is not really that any more - it's taken to have analogue characteristics, and that's where things get interesting ...

There is no hybrid state. Distortions in the digital domain are converted to analog, where they can manifest themselves as bad stuff (noise, distortion), where you have to deal with the stuff using filters or just ignoring it if it's too low in level to matter.

There is nothing mysterious or new about this. This is mature, 40+ year old technology now...

 

[fas42]

As I said, transducers are a different matter. We have a long way to go before they're a solved problem. This thread is about computers.

In my world transducers are not a problem. But computers can be. For the simple reason that the distortions added by the transducers are relatively easily dealt with by the brain, but those from the computer are not. Even on ultra low end computer speakers it was easy to hear the difference between different media players, and I went through a process of finding the optimum software setup, for a desktop, and then a laptop.

There is no hybrid state. Distortions in the digital domain are converted to analog, where they can manifest themselves as bad stuff (noise, distortion), where you have to deal with the stuff using filters or just ignoring it if it's too low in level to matter.

There is nothing mysterious or new about this. This is mature, 40+ year old technology now...

Noise inside the DAC is bad stuff. Very bad, because the artifacts manifest as very flat, fatiguing sound - the complaints about digital for decades occurred, as people had to learn to improve the handling of the process of conversion.

 

[Thomas savage]

In my world transducers are not a problem. But computers can be. For the simple reason that the distortions added by the transducers are relatively easily dealt with by the brain, but those from the computer are not. Even on ultra low end computer speakers it was easy to hear the difference between different media players, and I went through a process of finding the optimum software setup, for a desktop, and then a laptop.

Noise inside the DAC is bad stuff. Very bad, because the artifacts manifest as very flat, fatiguing sound - the complaints about digital for decades occurred, as people had to learn to improve the handling of the process of conversion.

Well given loads of music is recorded onto a digital medium then converted and edited, mastered etc all back and forth digitally these terrible artefacts must be in the recordings themselves.. So all a perfect digital playback system will do is reproduce those artefacts and the sound will be terrible




Unless........ It's all bollocks

 

[watchnerd]

Noise inside the DAC is bad stuff.

Yes, you're repeating what I just said. Noise in the analog section is bad. Some of the noise is from digital distortions getting converted. Some of it's for electrical reasons. Some of it is related to the noise of analog active components.

Nobody disagrees with this. What's your point?

 

[Blumlein 88]

In my world transducers are not a problem. But computers can be. For the simple reason that the distortions added by the transducers are relatively easily dealt with by the brain, but those from the computer are not. Even on ultra low end computer speakers it was easy to hear the difference between different media players, and I went through a process of finding the optimum software setup, for a desktop, and then a laptop.

Noise inside the DAC is bad stuff. Very bad, because the artifacts manifest as very flat, fatiguing sound - the complaints about digital for decades occurred, as people had to learn to improve the handling of the process of conversion.

Was watching a few minutes of a movie from the early 70's yesterday over my video rig. It had the characteristic sound of early solid state as studios switched from tubes to transistors. A bit scratchy, edgy, and flat. It seems a trend of sorts. Whenever a more variable medium is replaced by one more linear and lower distortion we get complaints of fatigue, edge, and flatness. Over time people who use this for production learn what is needed to get it all dolled up again. One of the reasons I doubt DSD if it differs is better. It likely is a coloration if not simply imagination.

Example of not dolled up vs dolled up.

 

[watchnerd]

Unless........ It's all bollocks

 

[fas42]

Yes, you're repeating what I just said. Noise in the analog section is bad. Some of the noise is from digital distortions getting converted. Some of it's for electrical reasons. Some of it is related to the noise of analog active components.

Nobody disagrees with this. What's your point?

The distortions are always analogue in nature. Always. There is no such thing as digital distortion, in the way you seem to be implying.

 

[Sal1950]

Looks a bit hermaphrodite like.
Tight costume reveals a large cameltoe.

 

[watchnerd]

The distortions are always analogue in nature. Always. There is no such thing as digital distortion, in the way you seem to be implying.

Okay, I'm going to repeat this again:

Some of the noise is from digital distortions getting converted.

Converted = to analog.

 

[watchnerd]

Looks a bit hermaphrodite like.
Tight costume reveals a large cameltoe.

I'm glad my work to place 'bollocks' in the right location had the correct visual cue effect.

 

[fas42]

Well given loads of music is recorded onto a digital medium then converted and edited, mastered etc all back and forth digitally these terrible artefacts must be in the recordings themselves.. So all a perfect digital playback system will do is reproduce those artefacts and the sound will be terrible




Unless........ It's all bollocks

Converted and edited? Everything should be done in the digital world, and then it's trivially easy to reduce distortion to impossibly low levels, especially these days. From the moment the sound hits the microphone, and is converted to digital in the ADC of the mic, to the moment it hits the Kii Three circuitry say, it should remain perfect, in every sense. Easy peasy these days, there's only a very small amount of wriggle room to go "bad" ...

 

[fas42]

Okay, I'm going to repeat this again:



Converted = to analog.

So, what are the "digital distortions" here?

 

[watchnerd]

So, what are the "digital distortions" here?

Jitter, for example, which manifests itself in the analog domain as side-band distortion.

 

[amirm]

Amir, yes, data is always accumulated - but dealing with a subset of everything is not telling the whole. Were the listeners specifically sensitive to hearing certain artifacts?

Depending on the test, yes and no. Do you have above average hearing and if so, how do you know?

 

[fas42]

Was watching a few minutes of a movie from the early 70's yesterday over my video rig. It had the characteristic sound of early solid state as studios switched from tubes to transistors. A bit scratchy, edgy, and flat. It seems a trend of sorts. Whenever a more variable medium is replaced by one more linear and lower distortion we get complaints of fatigue, edge, and flatness. Over time people who use this for production learn what is needed to get it all dolled up again. One of the reasons I doubt DSD if it differs is better. It likely is a coloration if not simply imagination.

What can be happening is that smoothed over bits from the prior methods have their "nakedness" revealed, and unpleasant so. What I've found happens is that there is a scale of competence:

1) Low resolution, smoothed over; very acceptable
2) Higher resolution, more artifacts of the original are apparent, artifacts of the playback process adding to the mix; can be quite unpleasant, fatiguing. This is classic early digital stuff
3) Higher resolution again, artifacts of original not strongly emphasised in most cases, playback processing of a good order. This is again highly acceptable, and probably where most current systems are at, or can be got to easily
4) Highest resolution, all the detail of the recording is audible, the artifacts of the original are now easily heard as being something unconnected with the recorded event, virtually all remaining anomalies of the playback are not subjectively perceived. This is not dolling up, this is removing everything that gets in the way of hearing the "naked truth" - the "inner beauty" now comes through, with full force

 

[fas42]

Jitter, for example, which manifests itself in the analog domain as side-band distortion.

Jitter is actually an analogue artifact, it's the effectively making a pure number to be not a pure number, it's an "almost a pure number" thing.

 

[watchnerd]

Jitter is actually an analogue artifact, it's the effectively making a pure number to be not a pure number, it's an "almost a pure number" thing.

No...what you're describing sounds more like quantization error....

Jitter is a digital time domain error due to clock problems:

It's analogous to wow & flutter in the analog world.

Seriously, @fas42 if you don't even know what the terms mean, I'm not sure where to go with this conversation.