Question about audible differences: does a lower noise floor improve the sound?

[the_lumberjack]

I just watched Amir's video called "GR Research B24 AC Cable Review: Does it Make an Audible Difference?" and something occurred to me.

I get that running the digital file comparison test is proof that there is no audible difference between two cables, because the difference between the two files is just noise below the audible threshold. But audiophiles claim that there is an audible difference that can be explained by having a lower noise floor directly translating into better instrument separation and bigger soundstage. I have two questions:

1. Is that possible that the absence of noise makes the equipment and/or speakers perform better because the noise is not interfering with the actual music signal?
2. If so, are there any real world tests that explore this? I would imagine such a test would have to be one in a anechoic chamber or an otherwise sound isolated space using a very sensitive microphone. But even if you were to capture that sound, you still have to compare it somehow and make sense of it.

 

[antcollinet]

1 - no. If the noise is below the level of audibility, it is - of course - inaudible. It doesn't have any audible impact on the sound you perceive. Nor does the equipment perform better if the noise is "even more inaudible". The equipment neither knows nor cares if it is dealing with noise or music. As far as the gear is concerned, there is no difference between the two. Noise is just a signal that is not part of the music.

2 - See 1.

 

[JustJones]

I always find this strange.
Let's see there's
1. Inaudible
2. More inaudible
3. Most inaudible
4. Mostest inaudible

 

[antcollinet]

I always find this strange.
Let's see there's
1. Inaudible
2. More inaudible
3. Most inaudible
4. Mostest inaudible

When you start talking about a population, you have a situation where at a different levels, stuff can be.

Inaudible to 1
Inaudible to some.
Inaudible to half
Inaudible to the majority
Inaudible to all.

You can also have different listening conditions.

What is inaudible when listening to speakers, might not be inaudible when listening to headphones, or IEMs etc.

Or in a noisy environment vs a quiet one.
etc

Of course, you reach a level where stuff is inaudible to everyone, all the time, under any circumstances.

 

[the_lumberjack]

1 - no. If the noise is below the level of audibility, it is - of course - inaudible. It doesn't have any audible impact on the sound you perceive. Nor does the equipment perform better if the noise is "even more inaudible". The equipment neither knows nor cares if it is dealing with noise or music. As far as the gear is concerned, there is no difference between the two. Noise is just a signal that is not part of the music.

2 - See 1.

What I am saying is, might the equipment care if the noise is simply not there? Could the speaker theoretically perform better if there was no noise at all in the signal?

 

[JustJones]

When you start talking about a population, you have a situation where at a different levels, stuff can be.

Inaudible to 1
Inaudible to some.
Inaudible to half
Inaudible to the majority
Inaudible to all.

You can also have different listening conditions.

What is inaudible when listening to speakers, might not be inaudible when listening to headphones, or IEMs etc.

Or in a noisy environment vs a quiet one.
etc

Of course, you reach a level where stuff is inaudible to everyone, all the time, under any circumstances.

Yes, sorry, I wasn't very clear. Was thinking of this in the OP

difference between the two files is just noise below the audible threshold.

audiophiles claim that there is an audible difference that can be explained by having a lower noise floor

If it's below the audible threshold of human hearing then there isn't degrees of inaudible.

 

[JustJones]

What I am saying is, might the equipment care if the noise is simply not there? Could the speaker theoretically perform better if there was no noise at all in the signal?

If it's below our hearing threshold then we wouldn't be able to hear it even if it did.

 

[BDWoody]

But audiophiles claim that there is an audible difference that can be explained by having a lower noise floor directly translating into better instrument separation and bigger soundstage.

Audiophiles claim lots of things. When they can provide evidence, pay more attention. Anecdotal claims or infomercials from salesmen aren't worth much without more than good stories.

Here is some interesting back and forth between our host and Danny from some time back you may enjoy:

GR Research B24 AC Cable Review Follow up [Entertainment]

As some of you requested, here is my response to Danny's contentions regarding my review of GR Research B24 AC cable. If you have not seen it, here is my original video review: And Danny's reply video: If you have not already, please go to my youtube page and subscribe. It won't make me...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[paulcc]

In my house, we have heat and A/C and one of them is almost always on and the blower raises the noise floor in the listening room about 10db above the normal ambient noise which is about 30db or so. So for me, worrying about barely audible noise makes no sense at all even with headphones on.

 

[the_lumberjack]

If it's below our hearing threshold then we wouldn't be able to hear it even if it did.

I asked the following of ChatGPT (bear with me): “Why do audiophiles claim that removing noise from an analog signal improves the imaging and soundstage? The noise is well below the audible threshold, so why would removing something that is not audible change the sound?”

Here’s what it said. Some of that makes sense but I just don’t have the technical background. Anyone wanna poke holes?

Great question! Audiophiles often claim that reducing noise in analog signals improves imaging and soundstage because even sub-audible noise can interfere with the subtle cues that shape our perception of these qualities. Here’s why this might make a difference, even if we can’t consciously “hear” the noise:

1. Dynamic Range and Signal Clarity: Even inaudible noise adds a subtle, constant interference that can mask very low-level details in the music. Our auditory system uses these fine details, like small reverb tails and microdynamics, to perceive a 3D-like soundstage. By reducing noise, these faint details become clearer and contribute more fully to the imaging and depth perception.

2. Intermodulation Effects: Noise can create intermodulation distortion with the musical signal, generating new, unwanted frequencies. This can “muddy” the sound in subtle ways, reducing the separation between instruments and making the overall sound seem more “congested.” Removing this noise can restore the sense of space and separation.

3. Psychoacoustic Sensitivity: Although the noise might be below the audible threshold, our brains are still remarkably sensitive to the presence or absence of tiny distortions or irregularities. This sensitivity could translate into a more relaxed listening experience, which audiophiles interpret as improved imaging and soundstage.

4. Phase Coherence: Many of the cues for soundstage and imaging are encoded in phase differences between the left and right channels. Some noise sources can disrupt this phase information, subtly altering the spatial cues. By minimizing this noise, phase coherence is maintained, and imaging improves.

While these differences might be subtle, experienced listeners claim that even small improvements in signal integrity can lead to a more realistic, immersive listening experience.

 

[BDWoody]

Why do audiophiles claim that removing noise from an analog signal improves the imaging and soundstage?

I thought this was about a power cord, not interconnects, even though the same idea applies. The physics of cables and interconnects does not require anything special to be perfectly effective. The audiophile cable thing is beyond ridiculous.

In general, lower noise is better than higher noise, but you aren't going to get lower noise from a power cable, or from properly constructed and chosen interconnects of any kind to any degree that would matter.

 

[JustJones]

I'll let ChatGPT answer itself.

Why is this statement nonsense?

1.Dynamic Range and Signal Clarity: Even inaudible noise adds a subtle, constant interference that can mask very low-level details in the music. Our auditory system uses these fine details, like small reverb tails and microdynamics, to perceive a 3D-like soundstage. By reducing noise, these faint details become clearer and contribute more fully to the imaging and depth perception.

ChatGPT said:​

The statement is somewhat misleading because it conflates a few concepts and makes assumptions about how human hearing works, particularly regarding inaudible noise. Here’s why it’s problematic:

1. "Even inaudible noise adds a subtle, constant interference": If noise is truly inaudible, it would not have any measurable impact on perception. The idea of "inaudible" noise interfering with sound is paradoxical. If it can't be heard, it shouldn't affect the listening experience.
2. "That can mask very low-level details in the music": If noise is inaudible, it wouldn't mask any details, especially at low levels, because it doesn’t reach the threshold of human hearing.
3. "Our auditory system uses these fine details, like small reverb tails and microdynamics, to perceive a 3D-like soundstage": While it's true that small details contribute to spatial and depth perception, the idea that inaudible noise masks them is oversimplified. Microdynamics and reverb tails are typically well above the noise floor that might be present in a high-quality audio system. The masking effect generally happens with noise that is audible, not with noise that's below the threshold of hearing.
4. "By reducing noise, these faint details become clearer and contribute more fully to the imaging and depth perception": Reducing audible noise can improve sound clarity, but if the noise is inaudible to begin with, reducing it wouldn't make a noticeable difference. The claim that inaudible noise impacts the "imaging and depth perception" is unsubstantiated.

In short, the concept that inaudible noise has a perceptible effect on low-level musical details or spatial characteristics is flawed. It’s more plausible that reducing audible noise improves clarity and imaging, but not because of any effect from inaudible noise.

 

[the_lumberjack]

I'll let ChatGPT answer itself.

Why is this statement nonsense?

1.Dynamic Range and Signal Clarity: Even inaudible noise adds a subtle, constant interference that can mask very low-level details in the music. Our auditory system uses these fine details, like small reverb tails and microdynamics, to perceive a 3D-like soundstage. By reducing noise, these faint details become clearer and contribute more fully to the imaging and depth perception.

ChatGPT said:​

The statement is somewhat misleading because it conflates a few concepts and makes assumptions about how human hearing works, particularly regarding inaudible noise. Here’s why it’s problematic:

1. "Even inaudible noise adds a subtle, constant interference": If noise is truly inaudible, it would not have any measurable impact on perception. The idea of "inaudible" noise interfering with sound is paradoxical. If it can't be heard, it shouldn't affect the listening experience.
2. "That can mask very low-level details in the music": If noise is inaudible, it wouldn't mask any details, especially at low levels, because it doesn’t reach the threshold of human hearing.
3. "Our auditory system uses these fine details, like small reverb tails and microdynamics, to perceive a 3D-like soundstage": While it's true that small details contribute to spatial and depth perception, the idea that inaudible noise masks them is oversimplified. Microdynamics and reverb tails are typically well above the noise floor that might be present in a high-quality audio system. The masking effect generally happens with noise that is audible, not with noise that's below the threshold of hearing.
4. "By reducing noise, these faint details become clearer and contribute more fully to the imaging and depth perception": Reducing audible noise can improve sound clarity, but if the noise is inaudible to begin with, reducing it wouldn't make a noticeable difference. The claim that inaudible noise impacts the "imaging and depth perception" is unsubstantiated.

In short, the concept that inaudible noise has a perceptible effect on low-level musical details or spatial characteristics is flawed. It’s more plausible that reducing audible noise improves clarity and imaging, but not because of any effect from inaudible noise.

Haha! That’s hilarious and it’s why I take everything ChatGpt says with a grain of salt.

 

[DVDdoug]

I wouldn't try arguing with (or reasoning with) a machine!

 

[sam_adams]

ChatGPT said:

You forgot to ask it, "Are you sure?".

 

[Blumlein 88]

I asked the following of ChatGPT (bear with me): “Why do audiophiles claim that removing noise from an analog signal improves the imaging and soundstage? The noise is well below the audible threshold, so why would removing something that is not audible change the sound?”

Here’s what it said. Some of that makes sense but I just don’t have the technical background. Anyone wanna poke holes?

Great question! Audiophiles often claim that reducing noise in analog signals improves imaging and soundstage because even sub-audible noise can interfere with the subtle cues that shape our perception of these qualities. Here’s why this might make a difference, even if we can’t consciously “hear” the noise:

1. Dynamic Range and Signal Clarity: Even inaudible noise adds a subtle, constant interference that can mask very low-level details in the music. Our auditory system uses these fine details, like small reverb tails and microdynamics, to perceive a 3D-like soundstage. By reducing noise, these faint details become clearer and contribute more fully to the imaging and depth perception.

2. Intermodulation Effects: Noise can create intermodulation distortion with the musical signal, generating new, unwanted frequencies. This can “muddy” the sound in subtle ways, reducing the separation between instruments and making the overall sound seem more “congested.” Removing this noise can restore the sense of space and separation.

3. Psychoacoustic Sensitivity: Although the noise might be below the audible threshold, our brains are still remarkably sensitive to the presence or absence of tiny distortions or irregularities. This sensitivity could translate into a more relaxed listening experience, which audiophiles interpret as improved imaging and soundstage.

4. Phase Coherence: Many of the cues for soundstage and imaging are encoded in phase differences between the left and right channels. Some noise sources can disrupt this phase information, subtly altering the spatial cues. By minimizing this noise, phase coherence is maintained, and imaging improves.

While these differences might be subtle, experienced listeners claim that even small improvements in signal integrity can lead to a more realistic, immersive listening experience.

And once again AI is a total failure on something super simple.

 

[Chrispy]

And once again AI is a total failure on something super simple.

Or is it more indicative of the sea of bullshit we all swim in ?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Or is it more indicative of the sea of bullshit we all swim in ?

It is, but it also indicates AI is not capable of swimming in that sea of BS. So what use is it? Inaudible is inaudible, but sub-audible isn't. Yeah, right. I guess AI would be highly effective as an automated BS sales software. Lord help us as we already have too much of that.

 

[Chrispy]

It is, but it also indicates AI is not capable of swimming in that sea of BS. So what use is it? Inaudible is inaudible, but sub-audible isn't. Yeah, right. I guess AI would be highly effective as an automated BS sales software. Lord help us as we already have too much of that.

Seems its still how you pose the question perhaps. I'm not looking forward to more AI, we already have an issue with comprehension of information.

 

[OldHvyMec]

The only problem for me with auditable noise is its distracting and causes me to look and see what is to close to a power cable. There shouldn't
be noise if cables are routed correctly. I use over 65 valves at a time and it's as quiet as a mouse. If I do have noise from one session to the next
I find out where it is and fix it. I quit putting up with a noisy system in my 20s. I just turned 69.

The wife listens to the system 10X more than I do. She is Johnny on the spot if she hears anything out of the ordinary. She is actually pretty good
at hunting down a cable being to close to a PC or if there is a routing problem.

We use D300 Jensen Imperials from time to time when I dig them out. Sensitive speaker can really try your patience if your not careful. One of the
main reason I'm not a fan of powered speakers. Some of those thing are just plane noisy. I had a couple of Dayton 1000 watt plate amps that went
back to PE behind being noisy. Considering I've used them for years there's no need to just put up with noise.

As far a causing problems with how a system performs it's in your head unless there is a physical issue with the equipment or a valve going south
and causing a physical issue. MC240 sure sound like crap if they start to lose a power valve. Those valves have to be pretty closely matched per
rail or they can sound pretty weird, same with the small valves.

SS who cares, they all sound bright to me with a few exceptions, like class Ds and a few of NP 's amps. As long as they aren't noisy I can live with
it for a while anyway.

Danny, he's a character for sure. LOL

Regards