Post research here that casts doubt on ASR objectivism

[Dialectic]

This page from Benchmark might be more germane...

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/listening-vs-measurements

View attachment 131572

These artifacts elude conventional measurements because of the nature of conventional measurement processes, not because the audible effects of intersample overs are unmeasurable.

 

[ahofer]

Very unfortunate you have a bad hearing and cannot hear difference between . . . well anything.

I'm sure you intended a joke by offering *the stupidest and most arrogant* response to well-supported research. Well played.

You might be interested to see the results of this research with respect to reviewers' performance in speaker listening tests.

 

[audio2design]

These artifacts elude conventional measurements because of the nature of conventional measurement processes, not because the audible effects of intersample overs are unmeasurable.

This implies a failure at the recording/processing stage. The underlying signal should have clipped and been noted.

 

[audio2design]

And yet I wonder if cable TV providers are so fastidious with their own wiring and connectors, which are exposed to the elements.

They are

 

[daftcombo]

Dismiss science thanks to science...
Hmm...

 

[KSTR]

This implies a failure at the recording/processing stage. The underlying signal should have clipped and been noted.

Not all mastering houses used upsampling peak detectors in the past, though most do, now.
IS overs are basically a non-issue, IHMO. At least when the produce soft clipping. I have an older YAMAHA CD-player which produces code wrap-arounds when hit with IS overs, quity nasty.

 

[Wes]

Further research is needed into psycho-acoustics, including small signal distortion and whether all harmonics can be treated as equal and summed as THD.

The real issue is with speakers however.

 

[audio2design]

No, with intersample overs, the sample on the recording may not have clipped but is just at a very high level. With non-clipped material recorded at high levels, sample rate conversion in the DAC can cause interpolated samples (which by definition are not present in the original recording) to clip.

The analog levels had to be above the clipping level during recording and/digital equivalent in post processing. It will only create analog interpolated levels that were in the original signal (or should).

 

[audio2design]

Not all mastering houses used upsampling peak detectors in the past, though most do, now.
IS overs are basically a non-issue, IHMO. At least when the produce soft clipping. I have an older YAMAHA CD-player which produces code wrap-arounds when hit with IS overs, quity nasty.

They didn't properly monitor their analog stream a1

I could be mistaken and welcome being corrected if I am, but I don't think it's necessary for digital samples in the recording to clip for intersample overs to occur.

The digital samples won't clip. The analog voltage will exceed the A/D input range.

 

[Dialectic]

They didn't properly monitor their analog stream a1


The digital samples won't clip. The analog voltage will exceed the A/D input range.

Intersample overs are a DAC issue, not a recording issue, although intersample overs result from recordings made at, or normalized or compressed to, high levels.

Lots of discussion of the phenomenon here on ASR, and Archimago looks at intersample overs in the DAC measurements on his blog.

I suspect intersample overs are audible but only barely.

 

[ahofer]

I think you over state the case somewhat.

Some differences can obviously be heard but then the issue is do we have a measurement that correlate to it.

If not we need to find one that does.

Regards Andrew

I'm not seeing where I said no differences could be heard at all.

As @BDWoody pointed out, as yet, AFAIK, nobody has identified something that IS audible but can't be measured (see many, many other threads here).

 

[ahofer]

Those statements do not belong to this forum or any other brand or entity, they are general statements describing basic principles that are all known and proven.

"It is known."

I tend to agree - but since this is ASR, and we have experienced an influx of interlocutors who don't accept them, I'm proceeding without treating our approach as axiomatic.

 

[ahofer]

Reads like a manifesto too. Not a fan of that kind of thing.

Do you have a suggestion? I'm trying to make it more of a "here's how to prove us wrong" post...

 

[ahofer]

I would say this statement needs to be better defined since we are talking about science and measurements here.

1. You mention they are copper. How about plated copper or copper alloys? Since 100% pure copper does not exist, at what purity do you consider it copper?

2. Proper gauge. What is proper gauge? Could you also show me a test where cable out this "proper gauge" produces an audible difference?

3. I assume stranded means anything that is not solid core. Any measurements to show that there is a difference between solid core and stranded? Do number of strands make any difference?

I refined the statement. Solid core can produce rising AC resistance in high frequencies, which probably isn't audible. Or maybe it is...after all, users have occasionally preferred the coat hanger.

Long runs of very thin gauge also produce measurable, though perhaps not audible effects. As for purity - fair enough - I'm moving to measured LCR as a comparison, although I haven't put in hard numerical boundaries (suggestions?).

 

[Dialectic]

Do you have a suggestion? I'm trying to make it more of a "here's how to prove us wrong" post...

I like the way you presented the original post and hope we can have a productive discussion in this thread.

I know that some folks new to the prevailing perspective here are likely to go crazy and say we're stupid, evil, disturbed, etc., but that's how it goes.

Many of us ASR posters used to have a more traditional audiophile perspective. Perhaps a few folks will be persuaded by what they read.

 

[Jimbob54]

Do you have a suggestion? I'm trying to make it more of a "here's how to prove us wrong" post...

I would move away from "we" and "us". It sets a confrontational tone and also may try to present more of a unified position than perhaps exists on here.

I'm not sure there is a place for believing anything in such a post either.

I'm not qualified to critique the underlying assertions though, but nothing struck me as outlandish

 

[izeek]

Every audio forum has a user thinking line that is different.
At least thanks to Amir we do have measurements.
It is rare nowadays and very useful.

As a reader you intake the information and process it following your will.
For example in my case I am using bi-amping on large column speakers because it improves the sound, i can ear it.
Most of this forum posts will tell you that it is a marketing trick.
I do not care because I am able to make my own judgment.

I feel you on bi-amping, mang.

 

[audio2design]

Intersample overs are a DAC issue, not a recording issue, although intersample overs result from recordings made at, or normalized or compressed to, high levels.

Lots of discussion of the phenomenon here on ASR, and Archimago looks at intersample overs in the DAC measurements on his blog.

I suspect intersample overs are audible but only barely.

I am not convinced as you can't create something that was not in the original signal (that is not a failure). It may manifest in the DAC but it likely it an issue created earlier in the process. If the oversampler causes gain and it saturates that would also cause it,but that's bad engineering at that point . I expect that there were short term excursions beyond the analog DAC input range. That may not cause digital saturation unless the peaks are at a sampling point but it is still a signal beyond the range of the analog input.

 

[Jimbob54]

There's lots of diversity among experienced posters here, but virtually no one who's been around ASR for a while thinks, for instance, that toslink cables sound different or that different sample rates above 96 kHz sound different.

I just don't like "we believe" and "we are only interested in". There are clearly forum users who do believe higher sample rates sound different and are quite happy to submit and discuss entirely sighted subjective opinions that fly in the face of the assertions here. Not my cup of tea for sure, but that's what we have.

 

[audio2design]

I feel you on bi-amping, mang.

I have measured performance improvement biamping with cheap amps with poor IM. Think receivers. Given how crap the performance is of many audiophile amps I can't discount this as an impossibility.