• 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.

Review and Measurements of Sony HAP-S1 Streamer/Server

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
1,124
Likes
601
Location
UK
#61
If the Chinese produce bad products for western brands then you have to blame the western brands because they wanted it so (they did the specs, probably also the design and the development, and dealed for the cheapest price).

These western brands usually also don't care about the environment, the loss of work places in the west and the problems their custumers have with these products, ... - I should stop ranting here. Best is to stay away of such brands (if this is possible)
It was me that used the term phone call to China, and the above post is what I was getting at, a large brand not caring about the quality of its products, not that China only makes crap, I can see how it didn't read that way.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
18,320
Likes
17,110
Location
Seattle Area
#62
It was me that used the term phone call to China, and the above post is what I was getting at, a large brand not caring about the quality of its products, not that China only makes crap, I can see how it didn't read that way.
I read it the way you intended. It is common in the industry to have "phoned in designs" which means a list of features were sent to China to produce a product with no design or verification behind it.
 

Kyle / MrHeeHo

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2018
Messages
105
Likes
82
#63
Heh. Still listed as Available Soon. Notify Me.

They have a whole line-up of beautiful looking "Signature Series" coming out, which is another classic tell for a brand resting on it's laurels. When they are marketing a bespoke line-up offering the top-notch build and engineering that used to be what their entire brand was known for, it's because their main products have been value-engineered into forgettable junk and their reputation among discerning customers is trashed.
If you take a closer look every item in the Signature Series is advertised with a bunch of undeniable snake oil. They even highlight using Kimber Kable in the innards of their $3000+ portable players


I'm not surprised by this performance, Sony has been slowly fading into irrelevancy outside of the PlayStation brand
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
149
Likes
12
#65
I see a lot of hate to Sony here.. Look, audio isn't all about measurement, (Ok that we are in audioSCIENCEreview, but you know... Let's be little smarter) Sony Pha-3 measures quite bad for it's price, but damn it sound so good that i would choose it instead of Topping D50+Atom with my EL8 closed, D50+atom miss something in the treble but it's overall good.. Anyway, I call Sony a revolutionary brand that brings step for the future, for example with HDR upsampling from SDR source, that it's the future, Hi-res audio from low-res source with DSEE HX, future, 4hz to 120khz playable frequencies on headphones, Insanity (Both for skepticals) PCM to DSD with the TA-ZH1ES and others stuff this Dac/AMP features, future, don't it is? I think it is, that's why i love Sony.. I had the Z7 and i don't Like at all the sound it had, too uncontrolled and bassy, but I'm looking forward to ZA-ZH1ES as i see all reviews are shockingly good, and with the Z1R an user tell me it is ''an experience to the infinite hole of space discendent (or ascendent)'' wow.!?! As I don't see Any measurement of it about distortion, dynamic range etc. It's missing, i would really like to see something about his measurement, @amirm does someone planned to sent the unit TA-ZH1ES to you? I was looking to test it if here in Italy is it possible somewhere, and maybe buy it..
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
80
Likes
86
Location
China
#67
...Anyway, I call Sony a revolutionary brand that brings step for the future, for example with HDR upsampling from SDR source, that it's the future, Hi-res audio from low-res source with DSEE HX, future, 4hz to 120khz playable frequencies on headphones, Insanity (Both for skepticals) PCM to DSD with the TA-ZH1ES and others stuff this Dac/AMP features, future, don't it is?...
Bunch of useless features/options ≠ Future

Like the "4hz to 120khz playable frequencies", what's the point? You got a pair of cyborg ears or something? That's way beyond the audible range. Also "Hi-res audio from low-res source", you simply cannot restore lost information in low-res source with some "magical" algorithm, that's against the physical laws.

Edit: From Sony: "Enjoy optimal audio performance with Sony-unique DSEE HX technology. DSEE-HX revitalizes high-frequency audio response while also up-scaling existing audio signals (MP3, AAC, ATRAC, and WMA) to high-resolution levels."

Aw yes, REVITALIZE, what a magnificent word, change that to "Dynamic EQ" and it suddenly lost its magic, lol, also up-scaling has been proven to be a scandal too.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
149
Likes
12
#68
Bunch of useless features/options ≠ Future

Like the "4hz to 120khz playable frequencies", what's the point? You got a pair of cyborg ears or something? That's way beyond the audible range. Also "Hi-res audio from low-res source", you simply cannot restore lost information in low-res source with some "magical" algorithm, that's against the physical laws.
That's way above the audible range, but that's there.. So if upsampling or dsd converting isn't as good as native content, sure, but it's surely better than previous, I don't think any physical laws deny it, they do it, i don't know how, but they do it.. If 480p is going to be upsampled to 4k, it will, and will be defenately better than 480p. Anyway...
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
80
Likes
86
Location
China
#69
That's way above the audible range, but that's there.. So if upsampling or dsd converting isn't as good as native content, sure, but it's surely better than previous, I don't think any physical laws deny it, they do it, i don't know how, but they do it.. If 480p is going to be upsampled to 4k, it will, and will be defenately better than 480p. Anyway...
"That's way above the audible range, but that's there"

Umm... So what? There's Helium in the air, what's the benefit for you? I guess balloon man is real after all.:D

"So if upsampling or dsd converting isn't as good as native content, sure, but it's surely better than previous"

No it's not, upsampling does nothing good to the sound quality, it's simple logic, when you have 1 liter of water in a small bucket, pouring it into a huge barrel, would the water suddenly became more than 1 liter? No. Because the information was lost in the low-res encoding procedure, you can't use an "algorithm" to recover that infomation, there's no way of doing that.

"I don't think any physical laws deny it, they do it, i don't know how, but they do it.."

It's called Dynamic EQ, nothing magical, just a little bit of shininess in the high frequency, like MSG in your stir fry, I personally dislike it.

"If 480p is going to be upsampled to 4k, it will, and will be defenately better than 480p."

Yes, it will, because your eyes work completely different than your ears!

You upsampled the source, great, let's assume the magical DSEE HX worked, now it contains pseudo ultra high frequency that doesn't exist in the original recording, that's great too, you can finally listen to frequency up to 384kHz...

Wait, that's not true, because your ear still could only hear up to 20kHz! What's the point of upsampling? you trying to pour 10 liters of water into 1 liter volume bucket? what's the goal with that?

Edit: Just realized Amir debunked this "future" technology years ago...
 
Last edited:

BYRTT

Active Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
142
Likes
159
Location
Denmark (Jutland)
#70
That's way above the audible range, but that's there.. So if upsampling or dsd converting isn't as good as native content, sure, but it's surely better than previous, I don't think any physical laws deny it, they do it, i don't know how, but they do it.. If 480p is going to be upsampled to 4k, it will, and will be defenately better than 480p. Anyway...
It makes much more sense upsample video because please note when using video as a comparison example think one forget that for audio there is no reel proof that most downstream unit the reproducing trancducer had gone from a resolution in few hundreds up to several thoundsands, for audio domain week link seems not to be upstream but the most downstream one.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
80
Likes
86
Location
China
#71
It makes much more sense upsample video because please note when using video as a comparison example think one forget that for audio there is no reel proof that most downstream unit the reproducing trancducer had gone from a resolution in few hundreds up to several thoundsands, for audio domain week link seems not to be upstream but the most downstream one.
People tend to forget that their eyes see more than 480p resolution, but their ears could only hear up to 20kHz!:facepalm:
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
149
Likes
12
#72
"That's way above the audible range, but that's there"

Umm... So what? There's Helium in the air, what's the benefit for you? I guess balloon man is real after all.:D

"So if upsampling or dsd converting isn't as good as native content, sure, but it's surely better than previous"

No it's not, upsampling does nothing good to the sound quality, it's simple logic, when you have 1 liter of water in a small bucket, pouring it into a huge barrel, would the water suddenly became more than 1 liter? No. Because the information was lost in the low-res encoding procedure, you can't use an "algorithm" to recover that infomation, there's no way of doing that.

"I don't think any physical laws deny it, they do it, i don't know how, but they do it.."

It's called Dynamic EQ, nothing magical, just a little bit of shininess in the high frequency, like MSG in your stir fry, I personally dislike it.

"If 480p is going to be upsampled to 4k, it will, and will be defenately better than 480p."

Yes, it will, because your eyes work completely different than your ears!

You upsampled the source, great, let's assume the magical DSEE HX worked, now it contains pseudo ultra high frequency that doesn't exist in the original recording, that's great too, you can finally listen to frequency up to 384kHz...

Wait, that's not true, because your ear still could only hear up to 20kHz! What's the point of upsampling? you trying to pour 10 liters of water into 1 liter volume bucket? what's the goal with that?
The goal is that with 96khz i found the sound more real-life like and open, less strainier, at high volumes and i feel more immersed vs the 48, maybe my 20 year Age contribute but doesn't matter (Maybe i have very good hearing, NEVER MIND..), to me is better, don't care what the other's people say, that doesn't change a thing for me, if they say it's all BS etc etc. even because in this site they said me several things such as: Crosstalk of 60db or 90db doesn't make a difference [I got pha-3 that's 60db and Topping d50+atom 90 db overall, the difference is audible there on separation] balanced connection are bullshit, cables don't make any difference (Even tho i stated that with my qed toslink vs a 10€ toslink optical the difference was audible, telling that wasn't a 'mind thing', under their ''law of psicologic bla bla..'', it sounded way better on treble to me, for sure. And now i'm sure because i can tell that i got two cheap RCA cables form different companies, one long 0,2metres and the other 0,5m, they sounded different, seriously, the 0,2 one had more body, or bass, overall fuller to me with my setup, so, to me is totally bullshit who state that cables don't do any difference..) and other kind of stuff.. Anyway..
So for you the endgame point of discussion was that with upsampling of frequencies you couldn't restore frequencies that wasn't on recording, oh that's true, you can't add something isn't present on original recording, but what if that's original.. No wait, let me explain a thing, i don't know how sound is going to be compressed into frequencies on recording, that's why what i will say probably would be a guessing.. What if original recording contains all the real-life world existing frequencies, but if you choose '44khz recording' all the frequencies will be compressed into 44khz, that could be the explanation itself..
Anyway again, if you say that with upsampling upper frequencies can't exist, i don't beleive it because first of all that i think can be surely be measures with frequency graphs and that kind of stuff, and second, the upsampling would not exist, for me. I think that on 48khz to 96khz even the 30-40khz sinewaves gets some db of paying into graphs, so, if that's so, that's why the upsampling exist, so the only thing is to know where those 30-40khz sinewaves where comes from? And mostly why they Fall linear with the rest of the sound? Maybe because it's part of the sound itself and restored by upsampled isn't it? Anyway, i'm not into audio measurement at all, so i'm just 'supposing', but i think that some of my statement got a base, if someone can understand that could be explained more deeply by who are into this job, for sure.. And all of that 'magical' ultrasonic frequencies can't be heard or not by our medium 20hz-20khz ears capabilities, is another pair of thing, someone state those can be 'felt', anyway, for sure in our world there are like 1000khz frequencies and more, as it is real that here in Italy i can see the Rome while i can't watch at the same time Paris in France LOL
Hope to be understanded, sorry if i didn't explained well, English is not my main languange

Anyway, in which way the eyes are different than ears on ''480p on 4k upsampling looks better''
'' Yes, it will, because your eyes work completely different than your ears!''.? :)
OMSHIT i swear i thinked just at the end i had lost all my text but thanks god i reloaded the page and it was there, fiu...
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
80
Likes
86
Location
China
#73
The goal is that with 96khz i found the sound more real-life like and open, less strainier, at high volumes and i feel more immersed vs the 48, maybe my 20 year Age contribute but doesn't matter (Maybe i have very good hearing, NEVER MIND..), to me is better, don't care what the other's people say, that doesn't change a thing for me, if they say it's all BS etc etc. even because in this site they said me several things such as: Crosstalk of 60db or 90db doesn't make a difference [I got pha-3 that's 60db and Topping d50+atom 90 db overall, the difference is audible there on separation] balanced connection are bullshit, cables don't make any difference (Even tho i stated that with my qed toslink vs a 10€ toslink optical the difference was audible, telling that wasn't a 'mind thing', under their ''law of psicologic bla bla..'', it sounded way better on treble to me, for sure. And now i'm sure because i can tell that i got two cheap RCA cables form different companies, one long 0,2metres and the other 0,5m, they sounded different, seriously, the 0,2 one had more body, or bass, overall fuller to me with my setup, so, to me is totally bullshit who state that cables don't do any difference..) and other kind of stuff.. Anyway..
So for you the endgame point of discussion was that with upsampling of frequencies you couldn't restore frequencies that wasn't on recording, oh that's true, you can't add something isn't present on original recording, but what if that's original.. No wait, let me explain a thing, i don't know how sound is going to be compressed into frequencies on recording, that's why what i will say probably would be a guessing.. What if original recording contains all the real-life world existing frequencies, but if you choose '44khz recording' all the frequencies will be compressed into 44khz, that could be the explanation itself..
Anyway again, if you say that with upsampling upper frequencies can't exist, i don't beleive it because first of all that i think can be surely be measures with frequency graphs and that kind of stuff, and second, the upsampling would not exist, for me. I think that on 48khz to 96khz even the 30-40khz sinewaves gets some db of paying into graphs, so, if that's so, that's why the upsampling exist, so the only thing is to know where those 30-40khz sinewaves where comes from? And mostly why they Fall linear with the rest of the sound? Maybe because it's part of the sound itself and restored by upsampled isn't it? Anyway, i'm not into audio measurement at all, so i'm just 'supposing', but i think that some of my statement got a base, if someone can understand that could be explained more deeply by who are into this job, for sure.. And all of that 'magical' ultrasonic frequencies can't be heard or not by our medium 20hz-20khz ears capabilities, is another pair of thing, someone state those can be 'felt', anyway, for sure in our world there are like 1000khz frequencies and more, as it is real that here in Italy i can see the Rome while i can't watch at the same time Paris in France LOL
Hope to be understanded, sorry if i didn't explained well, English is not my main languange

Anyway, in which way the eyes are different than ears on ''480p on 4k upsampling looks better''
'' Yes, it will, because your eyes work completely different than your ears!''.? :)
OMSHIT i swear i thinked just at the end i had lost all my text but thanks god i reloaded the page and it was there, fiu...
"What if original recording contains all the real-life world existing frequencies, but if you choose '44khz recording' all the frequencies will be compressed into 44khz, that could be the explanation itself.."

That's not how Nyquist-Shannon sampling works at all, that's such a basic misunderstanding, it's information within a finite bandwidth! FINITE! There's no information beyond or below this bandwidth, that's why there's no benefit at all for you to upsample the low-res source! Seriously, one should always learn before they claim something wild, and giving others a headache.:facepalm:

Also, please prove to us that you could hear up to 96kHz, the human auditory frequency range was backed by numerous papers and science researchs, yet you still claim that 96kHz is more "immersive", "life-like", what SPL level do you think your ears could pick up beyond 20kHz? Is there any evidence to back up that claim? Like several ABX tests? "someone state those can be 'felt' " Just like all the good old snake oil, placebo effect is hell of a drug.

Please read Amir's post, Amir explained these in native English way better than myself.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
80
Likes
86
Location
China
#74
The goal is that with 96khz i found the sound more real-life like and open, less strainier, at high volumes and i feel more immersed vs the 48, maybe my 20 year Age contribute but doesn't matter (Maybe i have very good hearing, NEVER MIND..), to me is better, don't care what the other's people say, that doesn't change a thing for me, if they say it's all BS etc etc. even because in this site they said me several things such as: Crosstalk of 60db or 90db doesn't make a difference [I got pha-3 that's 60db and Topping d50+atom 90 db overall, the difference is audible there on separation] balanced connection are bullshit, cables don't make any difference (Even tho i stated that with my qed toslink vs a 10€ toslink optical the difference was audible, telling that wasn't a 'mind thing', under their ''law of psicologic bla bla..'', it sounded way better on treble to me, for sure. And now i'm sure because i can tell that i got two cheap RCA cables form different companies, one long 0,2metres and the other 0,5m, they sounded different, seriously, the 0,2 one had more body, or bass, overall fuller to me with my setup, so, to me is totally bullshit who state that cables don't do any difference..) and other kind of stuff.. Anyway..
So for you the endgame point of discussion was that with upsampling of frequencies you couldn't restore frequencies that wasn't on recording, oh that's true, you can't add something isn't present on original recording, but what if that's original.. No wait, let me explain a thing, i don't know how sound is going to be compressed into frequencies on recording, that's why what i will say probably would be a guessing.. What if original recording contains all the real-life world existing frequencies, but if you choose '44khz recording' all the frequencies will be compressed into 44khz, that could be the explanation itself..
Anyway again, if you say that with upsampling upper frequencies can't exist, i don't beleive it because first of all that i think can be surely be measures with frequency graphs and that kind of stuff, and second, the upsampling would not exist, for me. I think that on 48khz to 96khz even the 30-40khz sinewaves gets some db of paying into graphs, so, if that's so, that's why the upsampling exist, so the only thing is to know where those 30-40khz sinewaves where comes from? And mostly why they Fall linear with the rest of the sound? Maybe because it's part of the sound itself and restored by upsampled isn't it? Anyway, i'm not into audio measurement at all, so i'm just 'supposing', but i think that some of my statement got a base, if someone can understand that could be explained more deeply by who are into this job, for sure.. And all of that 'magical' ultrasonic frequencies can't be heard or not by our medium 20hz-20khz ears capabilities, is another pair of thing, someone state those can be 'felt', anyway, for sure in our world there are like 1000khz frequencies and more, as it is real that here in Italy i can see the Rome while i can't watch at the same time Paris in France LOL
Hope to be understanded, sorry if i didn't explained well, English is not my main languange

Anyway, in which way the eyes are different than ears on ''480p on 4k upsampling looks better''
'' Yes, it will, because your eyes work completely different than your ears!''.? :)
OMSHIT i swear i thinked just at the end i had lost all my text but thanks god i reloaded the page and it was there, fiu...
BTW I found a paper called "Hearing thresholds for pure tones above 16kHz" by Ashihara, Kaoru, "The absolute threshold usually starts to increase sharply when the signal frequency exceeds about 15 kHz. ... The present results show that some humans can perceive tones up to at least 28 kHz when their level exceeds about 100 dB SPL" It needs to be pure tone, under laboratory condition (noise free room), over 100db SPL!!!

Does your source audio contain pure 28kHz tone, over 100db SPL level? I doubt it.
 

BYRTT

Active Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
142
Likes
159
Location
Denmark (Jutland)
#75
The goal is that with 96khz i found the sound more real-life like and open...
Having fun listening is alright but think we can too easy be tricked by some distortion here and there, also remember its not only ears that hinder us hear above 20kHz also recording microphones and reproducing transducers add to that cascade of low pass filters.

Below is a simple loopback you can do yourself in few minuttes and sadly there looks be distortion in there:

1000.png


Now resolution or distortion in trancducer domain think is where you shall put your research or money isn't, below is simulated impulse locked on design axis for a typical 3 way in a boundery free enviroment and its a very long way from those above. The blue one above would probably be a ideal acoustic impulse out at listening position.

1000f.png
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
149
Likes
12
#76
"What if original recording contains all the real-life world existing frequencies, but if you choose '44khz recording' all the frequencies will be compressed into 44khz, that could be the explanation itself.."

That's not how Nyquist-Shannon sampling works at all, that's such a basic misunderstanding, it's information within a finite bandwidth! FINITE! There's no information beyond or below this bandwidth, that's why there's no benefit at all for you to upsample the low-res source! Seriously, one should always learn before they claim something wild, and giving others a headache.:facepalm:

Also, please prove to us that you could hear up to 96kHz, the human auditory frequency range was backed by numerous papers and science researchs, yet you still claim that 96kHz is more "immersive", "life-like", what SPL level do you think your ears could pick up beyond 20kHz? Is there any evidence to back up that claim? Like several ABX tests? "someone state those can be 'felt' " Just like all the good old snake oil, placebo effect is hell of a drug.

Please read Amir's post, Amir explained these in native English way better than myself.
I didn't claim nothing solid as i already said i'm not into this hobby and not studied this hobby, i hate when someone facepalm at me when i clearly say i'm a kind of newbie, is hard to me to start study this even little because my not perfect understanding of language, and surely if i don't know more basic things that what we are talking, because we are talking complicated things about frequencies in hi-res upsampling.. Anyway never mind, i comed into this thread to ask TA-ZH1ES measurements, i see we are not going in a good way with this discussion.. if i say it sounds more '' immersive'' TO ME, maybe just take it with a grain of salt, It's better for both cause my hearing is different, and that don't mean that i necessarely hear 40khz or 96khz frequencies, and that is because >>> science (as you said) tell us that the average auditorium human hearing is about 20hz-20khz (depending on factors) that amirm post you linked don't shows anything Helpful, i mean.. What we are looking for is: what really are those restored high frequencies that comes with upsampling? I'm pretty sure that who has audio gears that can measures it can answer and/or/with someone with superhuman hearing..
BTW I found a paper called "Hearing thresholds for pure tones above 16kHz" by Ashihara, Kaoru, "The absolute threshold usually starts to increase sharply when the signal frequency exceeds about 15 kHz. ... The present results show that some humans can perceive tones up to at least 28 kHz when their level exceeds about 100 dB SPL" It needs to be pure tone, under laboratory condition (noise free room), over 100db SPL!!!

Does your source audio contain pure 28kHz tone, over 100db SPL level? I doubt it.
That's very interesting stuff, anyway i have headphones so i think it count as a laboratory condition lol, now, i wanna say something here, of course i will say that my statements are ''purely from fantasy stories'' because you know.. Who knows that someones would facepalm me again.. Anyway..
That i will entirely Read for sure, i had read something, i wanna say again that with upsampled (i listen only unsampled) hi-res audio 24bit/96kh things to me sound more open and immersive, with simple 48khz it get just a little more closed, like a little wall, that don't let me listen euphorically like hi-res, but I'm talking about little/very little differences, but only at high volumes.. Ok.. When i had the Sony Z7 with Pha-3, i thinked that those 'ultrasonic' frequencies could be heared at very high volumes, the more volume, the more you could hear them, because based on the frequency graphs (depending in the sampling of course) the ultrasonic frequencies, higher ones gets lower of course on normal songs, the more higher the frequency was, the lowers in dB it gets, that's why i thinked that.. And boy as i see i wasn't crazy.. Sony is doing mad things, with PHA-3 that on frequency response is boosting the ultrasonic frequencies, wow, Insanity, would really like to know TA-ZH1ES freq response if it can boost even more, well if you think 120khz headphone is insanity is totally BS, i can see what are you doing there, they do it only marketing? It could be, but i don't think this is totally snake oil stuff, from who created DSD and DSD upsampling, and other stuff, not at all.. Anyway, if 28khz can be felt by someone at high volume (which age, we don't know the exact volume etc. because unknown) it's really interesting, that could be an interesting prove that hi-res is here for a reason (my ears know it yet :)) and making me not sad about what i think that to me it sound way good, that i found myself so trasported at hearing that i need myself to crank up the volume to hear deeply into that little world called sound, so good sensation when it happens.. Surely i'll have a very good sensitive hearing, i bet it, that i think it's just slightly going to deteriorate when sometimes i hear at very high volume lol Times with tell
If i can hear 28khz pure tone over 100 SPL with my audio gears? Well i don't know exactly what you refer for ''pure tone'', i got Topping D50 dac And Jds Atom amp, with Audeze el8 Titanium, based on their measurements i think they got it, right now i'm listening to Grand Theft Auto Vice City real in-game radio at around 100SPL (i think, i never measures it but i can say it's very loud) on Ps4 Pro with his DSEE HX, via optical to D50, right before i'm pretty sure i listened even at 110-120dB lol hell yeah, at that sound pressure level sometimes i get hiss sound from ears for around 5-30 minutes, not so dangerous i guess, still nice ;] Fortunately it happens only sometimes when i get chilled and laided back into my armchair, not so often, like i got myself to read stuff or write a lot like in this occasion.
Please don't get headache again, in that case, dissociate from my posts :) I hope and try to not be annoying and be comprehensive, but i can speak when someone misscromprend my statements, because like in this case those are strange ones lol..
I need to stop, can't spend 1 hour for write a post ahah
 

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
6,616
Likes
2,667
Location
Riverview, FL
#77
Having fun listening is alright but think we can too easy be tricked by some distortion here and there, also remember its not only ears that hinder us hear above 20kHz also recording microphones and reproducing transducers add to that cascade of low pass filters.
Transients don't look like Impulses.

Two small hardwood blocks, clapped together (loud) and recorded in-room. It's a real snappy sound.

1551534882819.png


Looking at the one marked:

1551534942721.png


And closer...

1551534994226.png


And closer...

1551536049783.png


And closer, individual samples dotted...

1551535252160.png


16/44 displayed above.

1551535647267.png


The mic is flat on out to the right end 20kHz, there's just not much content there in this little experiment.

And filter ringing? Don't see any...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
149
Likes
12
#78
Having fun listening is alright but think we can too easy be tricked by some distortion here and there, also remember its not only ears that hinder us hear above 20kHz also recording microphones and reproducing transducers add to that cascade of low pass filters.

Below is a simple loopback you can do yourself in few minuttes and sadly there looks be distortion in there:

View attachment 22917

Now resolution or distortion in trancducer domain think is where you shall put your research or money isn't, below is simulated impulse locked on design axis for a typical 3 way in a boundery free enviroment and its a very long way from those above. The blue one above would probably be a ideal acoustic impulse out at listening position.

View attachment 22918
This is with speaker right? What about headphones? Unfortunately i'm not an Expert in this stuff, i see those graphs when talking about digital filter of DAC's
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
80
Likes
86
Location
China
#79
I didn't claim nothing solid as i already said i'm not into this hobby and not studied this hobby, i hate when someone facepalm at me when i clearly say i'm a kind of newbie...
"If i can hear 28khz pure tone over 100 SPL with my audio gears? " You misunderstood the whole point of that research, you need the 28kHz signal over 100db SPL to hear it in pure tone form, that means unless the 28kHz signal's energy in your audio source are extremely high, and there's no masking effect, then you might hear it, the ATH are extremely high, it's really easy to disprove it in real life conditions, just check your audio file's spectrum, what's the energy level over 20kHz? Yep, you got it, that's way, way not enough for your ears to hear it, no matter how you phrase it, it's just placebo effect.

I own a Z7M2 (with balanced cable) myself, and I really couldn't stand the DSEE HX sound effect in WM1A, it sounds like someone pull the EQ up a few db in mid to high frequency, that's the ear's most sensitive frequency region, the low-res music's artifact after processing are way too much for me to enjoy, maybe some user's headphone got a dark profile, but I just can't enjoy the unnatural sound signature.
微信图片_20190302223949.jpg
BTW, this is the Audio Science Review forum, the aim ain't go crazy about data and totally forget about psychological effects (and yes, psychoacoustics is part of audio science too) , but to prove your opinion with scientific proofs and logic, like papers and research, for instance, researchs from Harman or B&K etc, no need to get emotional and encourage me to "dissociate with your post", I didn't mean anything on personal level, placebo effect aren't "audio science", but "fool yourself", better keep logical.
 

BYRTT

Active Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
142
Likes
159
Location
Denmark (Jutland)
#80
This is with speaker right? What about headphones? Unfortunately i'm not an Expert in this stuff, i see those graphs when talking about digital filter of DAC's
Right the black one was for speaker and below includes a smooth set of head phones which should help get the picture, now notice those synthetic simulated impulses is isolated per their domain, so how a total system impulse will really look is for example a cascade of player/DAC times power amps times transducers and their XO filters. Think also note that most head phones are not real smooth, to get feet wet about that one can try run trial version of for example one of Sonarworks packages.

1000g.png
 
Top Bottom