• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Distortion down to -300 dB, what exactly does that mean physically?

q3cpma

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
3,045
Likes
4,134
Location
France
Deleted my dumbass post, as it's simply wrong. XKCD is still for Reddit fart sniffers, but this "analysis" is completely bogus. Sorry for my unintentional shitpost.
 

SIY

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
6,822
Likes
14,762
Location
Alfred, NY
I think there is enough of it in the Naim forum including their own advice to use WAV;

Any actual evidence? Not just storytellers.

I was at a NAIM demo in Chicago a few years back. They claimed that FLAC and WAV sounded different, with WAV being superior, then proceeded to give a heavily coached demo ("Now here's the WAV. Notice the extra detail and depth?"). When things were opened to Q&A, I asked if there were any double blind tests supporting this astounding claim.
"Well, of course, we just did one!" Ahhh, OK.
"Do you know what a double blind test is?"
"I think it's someone else's turn to ask a question."

Seriously, that is a remarkably stupid claim for which one has to literally invoke the supernatural.
 
OP
voodooless

voodooless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
2,290
Likes
3,417
Location
Netherlands
I think there is enough of it in the Naim forum including their own advice to use WAV;

Come on, be specific.. I’m not going to search for this shit.

BTW also my neighbor (and his wife) shared exactly the same experience with his Naim streamer,

Sure they did.

And let's skip the nonsense.

That would mean you’d have to quit the forum :facepalm:
 

jensgk

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 21, 2020
Messages
133
Likes
378
Location
Denmark
Deleted my dumbass post, as it's simply wrong. XKCD is still for Reddit fart sniffers, but this "analysis" is completely bogus. Sorry for my unintentional shitpost.

Well, I am just as proud of reading many forums on Reddit, as reading this site. I find them equally reliable and enlightening :)
 

Geert

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
473
Likes
577
As I'm still not corrected by j-j till now;
Serious, Can you please explain to me why Rob Watts is fundamentally wrong ?
You've seen mine analysis of the presentation? Maybe you can explain how Watt's theory of audible but immeasurable noise floor modulation and crazy low noise shaping resolution works, since you seem to support it?
 

peterzuid

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
51
Likes
3
You've seen mine analysis of the presentation? Maybe you can explain how Watt's theory of audible but immeasurable noise floor modulation and crazy low noise shaping resolution works, since you seem to support it?

I like his idea of creating extra samples to reconstruct higher resolutions based on the sinc function
and I will repeat my reaction to j-j here.

"Concerning my thoughts on the "sinc issue";
From the theoretical side:
Regenerating the perfect analogue reconstruction of a sampled band limited signal is only possible by the sinc filter function.
This also means we should take all samples of a music piece into account (thus define a begin and an end)
It also means it will take eternity before we can replay the music piece as the sinc impulse response is not time limited
Conclusion; perfect reconstruction is not possible as delay on playback cannot be unlimited
Conclusion: perfect recontruction is not possible as it is impossible to realize a delta T = 0 between samples
From the practical side:
compromise to limit the amount of generated samples between the CD samples (15 chosen in the subject)
this will limit the accuracy of higher frequencies mostly
compromise to limit the respons time of the filter
this will limit the accuracy of lower frequencies mostly
In case compromise the respons time window of the filter to one second:
the lowest contribution wil be the first and last sample of the sinc window is sin(jwt)/jwt and 1/(44.100Hz * 0,5 sec) = let's say - 88 dB maximum and although not major, might still be significant
Contributions of samples more in the middle of the timeframe of course might have larger contributions to the extra generated samples.
Anyway; Limiting the amount of extra calculated samples between any two original and/or limiting the timeframe used for this calculation of the extra samples is throwing away information that is all available in the original sample pattern
This lost information can never be regenerated by any means once it has been thrown away.
Of course the main question remains;
At what compromise is missing information turning out to be audible ? (for someone/anyone)"

Please elaborate on what is fundamentally wrong with the above.
 

Geert

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
473
Likes
577
None of this has anything to do with what's explained in the video that started this topic. Even more, in that video Watt's discusses DSD, where the sinc function does not apply.

And you already received feedback on your theory:
- We don't need an infinite sinc function as we have limited hearing capabilities
- I posted a link to Archimago's experiment with a close to perfect sinc filter
 
Last edited:

peterzuid

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
51
Likes
3
None of this has anything to do with what's explained in the video that started this topic. Even more, in that video Watt's discusses DSD, where the sinc function does not apply.

No. of course sinc doesn't apply to DSD. You're avoiding the question
 

audio2design

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
1,308
Likes
1,230
Wrt PEz, Just shake your head and look away. Some people want to believe what they want to believe and others are interested in science (And math). When someone lacks the fundamentals for the topic but keeps arguing while illustrating with their arguments they don't know what they are talking about, the best things is to let them talk ....
 

Geert

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
473
Likes
577
No. of course sinc doesn't apply to DSD. You're avoiding the question
Edited my response.

You're the king in cherry picking and avoiding questions, so don't blame me. Where's your answer to my questions about Watt's theory, or your explanation of where Archimago's experiment goes wrong...?
 
Last edited:

peterzuid

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
51
Likes
3
Edited my response. You're the king in cherry picking and avoiding questions, so don't blame me.
then please lead by example so I can learn and please stop being just a conduit to information
 
Last edited:

Geert

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
473
Likes
577
then please lead by example so I can learn
What is it with you, I just clarified your questions have nothing to do with the topic of the video, and nevertheless they already been answered' including a link to an experiment that proves the point. Can't help it if you choose to ignore it because you don't like the outcome. And why would J_J go more in depth, as the theory would be over your head anyway?

And it's not up to us to lead. You're the one supporting Watt's theories, so it's you who needs to come up with some answers.
 
Last edited:

scott wurcer

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
1,503
Likes
2,782
I like his idea of creating extra samples to reconstruct higher resolutions based on the sinc function
and I will repeat my reaction to j-j here.

Please elaborate on what is fundamentally wrong with the above.

Fundamental only in the sense that a noiseless input signal is thermodynamically impossible. The Brownian motion of the air surrounding the microphone diaphragm can not be eliminated (except possibly at 0 Kelvin or in a vacuum). Ample literature on signal detection and noise exists where the level where there is no longer any information can be computed. Truncating the sinc function or changing filter characteristics below this level will not change the output at all.
 

SIY

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
6,822
Likes
14,762
Location
Alfred, NY

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
12,819
Likes
19,474
This is probably the most comprehensive treatment of that bullshit idea: https://www.hificritic.com/flac-wav-sound-quality-research.html
A doctor friend sent me these guy's goofball articles wanting to know if I thought they were on to something. I was at a loss to know where to begin initially as so much is wrong with these guy's approach. I did finally organize a reply which at first he seemed skeptical of as in skeptical something published was so wrong on so many levels. Then he saw other people commenting on the same issues and I think believed me.

I didn't re-read this once I saw who it was. Is the one where they determine how good the results are by assigning how high they perceive sounds in a few recordings "with height information in them". The higher the apparent sound the better the playback chain.
 

SIY

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
6,822
Likes
14,762
Location
Alfred, NY
A doctor friend sent me these guy's goofball articles wanting to know if I thought they were on to something. I was at a loss to know where to begin initially as so much is wrong with these guy's approach. I did finally organize a reply which at first he seemed skeptical of as in skeptical something published was so wrong on so many levels. Then he saw other people commenting on the same issues and I think believed me.

I didn't re-read this once I saw who it was. Is the one where they determine how good the results are by assigning how high they perceive sounds in a few recordings "with height information in them". The higher the apparent sound the better the playback chain.
"We still have to figure out why we can't hear these things without peeking. This clearly is a defect in the concept of basic controls."
 
Top Bottom