Hasan Aydin
Member
maybe it's easier to hear these IR changes at lower frequencies.What does that have to do with bass frequencies and perception of a change in bass drum and reconstruction filters ?
maybe it's easier to hear these IR changes at lower frequencies.What does that have to do with bass frequencies and perception of a change in bass drum and reconstruction filters ?
No, nothing about the norm, but because the science says it is vanishingly unlikely. We can measure what a device does to the sound. We know what is audible in terms of those measurements.You declare something impossible just because it doesn't occur in the norm
We do - see point 1.Instead, how about thinking the other way around and declaring something possible until you have proof against it.
But not so open our brains fall out.Open Minded was the key word
Science is also not advanced by wasting time investigating observations that have not been demonstrated to be valid. We have a way of demonstrating validity of listening observations - and that is the blind test. Blind testing is used in every field of scientific endeavour where human perceptions and reactions are involved. There is no reason for the science of audio to be different.This kind of thinking does not advance science.
Please. This argumentation is as old as the invention of scientific method itself. People see ghosts and when others don't believe them, they claim you are not open minded and this is counter indicative to the advancement of science, and therefore it is scientific to believe in ghosts until they are disproved. It is a fallacy. There are no ghosts.The differences I heard were mostly at low frequencies (bass, kick drum). Of course, there are also DAC filters that affect the frequency response, such as NOS and slow filters at lower sampling rates, and ripples are not uncommon. I made sure that I used filters that did not affect the frequency response (with measurements) and used sources from 96khz to make sure that the slow filters did not affect the audible frequency range.
That is what I am talking about and clarifies my core statement. You declare something impossible just because it doesn't occur in the norm and want proof of it. Instead, how about thinking the other way around and declaring something possible until you have proof against it. Open Minded was the key word. This kind of thinking does not advance science.
Some DAC marketing material describe sharp filters as bass enhancing, hence the correlation I think.What does that have to do with bass frequencies and perception of a change in bass drum and reconstruction filters ?
I would like to read a study that shows how much Pre and Post Ringing is audible or not.The pre and post ringing effects you get with an impulse response do not have any impact at the levels they are present.
I think that is a good idea. There are various measurements available here and at diyaudio.com.I would like to read a study that shows how much Pre and Post Ringing is audible or not.
I only see FR measurements here nothing about audibilty of IR differences.I think that is a good idea. There are various measurements available here and at diyaudio.com.
Here is a good starting point:
![]()
Digital filter "game"
Some of you probably have seen a lot of filter plots like these on DAC datasheets: How about making these things without using specialized software like Matlab, Octave and such? They are not particularly easy to use. So many people just "see" them rather than try to figure out the meaning...www.audiosciencereview.com
That should be easy to test it for yourself. Take a kick drum sample, pass it through the DAC with slow filter and record the output of your amp. Do it one more time but with the sharp filter on this time, and record that response too. Compare the two signals with DeltaWave and check if you see any differences.I only see FR measurements here nothing about audibilty of IR differences.
I think there is a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that a filter boosts the bass, the difference lies in the attack of bass or kick drums. With a linear phase filter it is less defined and sounds muddy, with minimum phase filters the bass sounds harder, of course you don't see such changes in the frequency response because it is in the time domain.
Why ? None of these frequencies are present in bass notes ?maybe it's easier to hear these IR changes at lower frequencies.
Possible that people 'hear' what some chart says they should hear.Some DAC marketing material describe sharp filters as bass enhancing, hence the correlation I think.
I would like to read a study that shows how much Pre and Post Ringing is audible or not.
What would be the highest harmonics of an 'attack' in bass or kick drums ?I'm not saying that a filter boosts the bass, the difference lies in the attack of bass or kick drums.
That should be easy to test it for yourself. Take a kick drum sample, pass it through the DAC with slow filter and record the output of your amp. Do it one more time but with the sharp filter on this time, and record that response too.
The problem here is that one can expect audible differences (not so much in bass) simply because the slow filters do not adhere to the sampling theorem.Measurements are not enough, human testing is also needed
Sorry, I did not get your point. Claim was the pre and post ringing created by sharp filters would be audible in the form of extra bass. I suggested to record the signal with sharp filter and slow filter and see if there is any difference in bass. I am not sure I follow how differences above Nyquist would be relevant for this claim.Not so fast... after all you would not be comparing 2 different DACs as they respond differently above 1/4 Nyquist already and the differences above Nyquist would not be present in that test.
Impulse response and frequency/phase response are the same thing. One can be derived fully from the other.I only see FR measurements here nothing about audibilty of IR differences.
Ringing is not introduced by a filter - it is an inherrent characteristic of a band limited signal. (It is what you are left with when higher frequencies are removed, or not added in the first place - See gibbs effect)Most of the evidence and research we have relates to FR and amplitude, but differences in time, such as pre and post ringing, are less researched. Measurements are not enough, human testing is also needed
You declare something impossible just because it doesn't occur in the norm and want proof of it. Instead, how about thinking the other way around and declaring something possible until you have proof against it.
Why do we always get stuck disproving nonsense.
Is pre/post related to slow/fast? I thought they were orthogonal properties.Claim was the pre and post ringing created by sharp filters would be audible in the form of extra bass. I suggested to record the signal with sharp filter and slow filter and see if there is any difference in bass.
No, there is a clear relationship. Pre-rining is created by phase linear filters only. And generally, the amount of rining is determined by the steepness of the filter.Is pre/post related to slow/fast? I thought they were orthogonal properties.
Instead, how about thinking the other way around and declaring something possible until you have proof against it.