Last edited:
In music wich has lots of frequencies mixed do you think it can be good test to check if the differences are same at each frequency or differ. It could affect the sound particularly timbre.
I made a test once of frequency precision and while other had always error i was always 100÷ precise.Create a tone with 1000Hz and another with 1002Hz and see.
I made a test once of frequency precision and while other had always error i was always 100÷ precise.
I had to turn a knob to obtain same frequency as the one i was listening i my score was always 0.00 difference with what i heard. Lot of people couldn't get 0 error. Better ones get 5÷ error.
So i believe i hear differences between frequencies very precisely. That's why i care about that.
Do the test Ray described, using a blind DBT tool, e.g. foobar, post the results.I made a test once of frequency precision and while other had always error i was always 100÷ precise.
I had to turn a knob to obtain same frequency as the one i was listening i my score was always 0.00 difference with what i heard. Lot of people couldn't get 0 error.
So i believe i hear differences between frequencies very precisely. That's why i care about that.
The only way I can think of to change the frequencies emitted by a recording is to change the speed (clock rate for digital, tape speed, or RPM for vinyl) of layback.
Headphones make more sense for these sorts of tests, to avoid the chaos of speakers in rooms making things complicated.I do detect a slight change in amplitude - move head to modify extent of comb filtering affecting the perceived SPL- two speakers, reflections present.
1000*1.007=1007At low frequencies, 2Δf is approximately constant and, averaged over many subjects, has a value of about 3.6 Hz. Above about 500 Hz, 2Δf increases nearly in proportion to frequency; in this range, 2Δf is approximately 0.007f. This means that a change in frequency of about 0.7% is just noticeable in this frequency range.
Headphones make more sense for these sorts of tests, to avoid the chaos of speakers in rooms making things complicated.
If over sampling can not make some error on precision of frequency?The only way I can think of to change the frequencies emitted by a recording is to change the speed (clock rate for digital, tape speed, or RPM for vinyl) of playback.
With music, all frequencies would be affected equally, the relative frequencies remain the same (an octave is still an octave, a fifth a fifth) and with this small an error, undetectable except by metered test. (@JustIntonation might disagree)
If over sampling can not make some error on precision of frequency?
No. Our ears aren't sensitive to that actual pitch.I got a question that is interesting for you.
When you make the 1khz test for thd and we see 1.002 instead of 1 does this small difference in precision of frequency can be hearable? Should we test the precision of the frequency obtained for more frequencies? Does asynchronous oversampling can change the precision?
That's actually for frequency modulations, not just slowing or speeding down the frequency as is being discussed. Our absolute pitch accuracy is quite poor and far worse than that. Years back studios would release VHS tapes in Europe PAL system as sped up 24 Hz to 25 frames per second of that video format. While some folks would notice that, clearly the mass market did not and that is a heck of a lot of pitch error.
Some people were really bothered by that, I was only bothered after I heard what it sounded like at the correct speed, once I heard that there was no going back to wrong. DVD was the same.Years back studios would release VHS tapes in Europe PAL system as sped up 24 Hz to 25 frames per second of that video format. While some folks would notice that, clearly the mass market did not and that is a heck of a lot of pitch error.
I kept reading to find the part that's relevant to the discussion. If I'm quoting the correct passage this time, it seems to be contradicting you:That's actually for frequency modulations, not just slowing or speeding down the frequency as is being discussed. Our absolute pitch accuracy is quite poor and far worse than that. Years back studios would release VHS tapes in Europe PAL system as sped up 24 Hz to 25 frames per second of that video format. While some folks would notice that, clearly the mass market did not and that is a heck of a lot of pitch error.
Although the dependence of just-noticeable frequency differences on frequency and on sound pressure level are similar to those of just-noticeable frequency modulations, the absolute values are smaller by a factor of three. The direction of this difference is astonishing: our hearing system is more sensitive to frequency changes if the task is to recognize differences rather than to recognize modulations. The pause between the two sounds to be compared does not reduce the sensitivity, on the contrary, it increases it! Displacing the data given in Fig. 7.8 down by a factor of three produces a reasonable approximation to the results at the two asymptotes: i.e. at frequencies below 500 Hz, we are able to differentiate between two tone bursts with a frequency difference of only about 1 Hz; above 500 Hz, this value increases in proportion to frequency and is approximately 0.002f.
No. Our ears aren't sensitive to that actual pitch.
That's actually for frequency modulations, not just slowing or speeding down the frequency as is being discussed. Our absolute pitch accuracy is quite poor and far worse than that. Years back studios would release VHS tapes in Europe PAL system as sped up 24 Hz to 25 frames per second of that video format. While some folks would notice that, clearly the mass market did not and that is a heck of a lot of pitch error.
That is a differential test, not steady-state as we are discussing. Our DAC aren't jumping up and down in speed that way.I kept reading to find the part that's relevant to the discussion. If I'm quoting the correct passage this time, it seems to be contradicting you: