Why aren’t there more university level controlled tests?

[Yorkshire Mouth]

That's good questions.

But how to define "real world" listening conditions? -What is the average noise floor?

My point. We might already have figured out certain base limits, but tasting them in different situations might change things per situation.

In direct answer to your question, I believe ‘a variety of material’, possibly? And who knows, maybe it’s different for different types of music.

But I’d certainly use well-recorded, well-mixed, well-mastered material, not brickwalled and compressed.

 

[SIY]

We might already have figured out certain base limits, but tasting them in different situations might change things per situation.

And who knows, if I test enough electrons, maybe I'll find one with fractional charge. It could happen.

 

[MAB]

Funny you don’t see a lot of experiments validating that gases expand as pressure decreases either.

Correct.

Is this elementary school?

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

I hope you understand, the paper you cited specifically relies on a prior understanding and acceptance that gasses expand as pressure decreases. It doesn't relitigate ideal gas law for instance, it assumes the expansion of gas as pressure decreases to be settled science. Also, since it is a theoretical paper on adiabatic expansion into an infinite volume, it makes no measurements, and accepts centuries of experimental results that gas does indeed expand, and makes no modifications to that observation. I can't think of a paper that is less relevant to the point you are driving than this one. Seems you randomly searched the internet to support your point that Universities should study DACs to see if there really is a difference. This is full Gish Gallop.

 

[ahofer]

Correct.

I hope you understand, the paper you cited specifically relies on a prior understanding and acceptance that gasses expand as pressure decreases. It doesn't relitigate ideal gas law for instance, it assumes the expansion of gas as pressure decreases to be settled science. Also, since it is a theoretical paper on adiabatic expansion into an infinite volume, it makes no measurements, and accepts centuries of experimental results that gas does indeed expand, and makes no modifications to that observation. I can't think of a paper that is less relevant to the point you are driving than this one. Seems you randomly searched the internet to support your point that Universities should study DACs to see if there really is a difference. This is full Gish Gallop.

Like I said, Poe’s Law.

 

[olieb]

Is 110 dB actually necessary? If not, then what is? AFAIK, there isn’t a solid, settled scientific view on this.

There can't be, because this question is not specific enough. "Necessary" for what?
If you want to perfectly reconstruct a signal from hearing threshold to above pain threshold, it is not sufficient.
If you want to listen to a recording with a certain noise spectrum to a realistic max. peak level of 100dBspl (in a listening room again with a specific noise spectrum) then 110dB SNR is not necessary unless you screw up your gain structure of course.
If you specify the question in a way that it can have a quantitative answer you will be able to put a number to it based on scientific knowledge.

 

[Blumlein 88]

There can't be, because this question is not specific enough. "Necessary" for what?
If you want to perfectly reconstruct a signal from hearing threshold to above pain threshold, it is not sufficient.
If you want to listen to a recording with a certain noise spectrum to a realistic max. peak level of 100dBspl (in a listening room again with a specific noise spectrum) then 110dB SNR is not necessary unless you screw up your gain structure of course.
If you specify the question in a way that it can have a quantitative answer you will be able to put a number to it based on scientific knowledge.

Amir has posted about this before. Going by your criteria Dolby labs (Fielder) looked into it extensively. I forget whether they said 115 or 120 db. Something like that. That is the best possible level beyond which you'll have no possible benefits. Everything else is a compromise, but many of them would be sufficient for 99% of all uses. I could find the thread Amir had on it, but shouldn't be hard to come up with.

 

[krabapple]

This?

 

[Blumlein 88]

This?

yes

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

And who knows, if I test enough electrons, maybe I'll find one with fractional charge. It could happen.

That’s really not what we’re talking about.

 

[SIY]

That’s really not what we’re talking about.

It is, but you're apparently unfamiliar enough with the history and results in this area to feel that other people need to expend resources and times re-demonstrating all the things you've missed.

The electronics end of audio is a long-solved problem except in marketing and the minds of the targets of the marketers.

 

[RayDunzl]

And who knows, if I test enough electrons, maybe I'll find one with fractional charge. It could happen.

If you do, you'll be more famous than you already are.

You'll have plenty of time to perform your experiment, 66,000 yottayears being an estimated lifetime for an electron.

Ok, so you made me look deeper. Well, not too deep, I'm not that capable an academician.

I don't find a suitable measure for the charge of an electron. It is self-referencing.

"Electron charge, (symbol e), fundamental physical constant expressing the naturally occurring unit of electric charge, equal to 1.602176634 × 10−19 coulomb."

That's like defining an egg as one unit of a dozen eggs.

 

[SIY]

That's like defining an egg as one unit of a dozen eggs.

Not really. Go back to car analogies.

We can do e/m ratios trivially (it's an undergraduate-level lab project) using magnets, measure Faradaic processes, forces exerted by charges, and deflections of moving particles from applied E fields, as a few examples. If we apply the same rigor to eggs, we find that no two are alike.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

It is, but you're apparently unfamiliar enough with the history and results in this area to feel that other people need to expend resources and times re-demonstrating all the things you've missed.

No it isn’t, and you’ve clearly missed so many of my comments.

I’m not talking about whether humans can hear greater SINAD than we’ve thought, and that’s not what I’ve suggested needs testing.

It’s a question of how much less is audible in real-world situations.

 

[Blumlein 88]

No it isn’t, and you’ve clearly missed so many of my comments.

I’m not talking about whether humans can hear greater SINAD than we’ve thought, and that’s not what I’ve suggested needs testing.

It’s a question of how much less is audible in real-world situations.

You can never answer the question for Sinad. It can only be answered somewhat by looking separately at distortion and noise.

 

[SIY]

You can never answer the question for Sinad. It can only be answered somewhat by looking separately at distortion and noise.

And even then, WHAT kind of distortion and noise with what kind of frequency content. There's an infinite number of variables, which encourages a God-of-the-Gaps style argument.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

You can never answer the question for Sinad. It can only be answered somewhat by looking separately at distortion and noise.

And that is exactly what continued testing is about. Eliminate variables. Combine variables and eliminate the combinations.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

And even then, WHAT kind of distortion and noise with what kind of frequency content. There's an infinite number of variables, which encourages a God-of-the-Gaps style argument.

Thank heaven that logical philosophers haven’t used that as an excuse to continually critically examine the matter.

 

[olieb]

I forget whether they said 115 or 120 db. Something like that. That is the best possible level beyond which you'll have no possible benefits.

Well, this is basically my point : you can give a number after specifying the question.
The max dynamic in Amirs post is estimated to 130 dB, so higher than the best DACs so far.
But that is quite theoretical for reproduction of the loudest observed music signal levels in a room as silent as can possibly be built. I doubt anyone outside of a thought experiment really wants to recreate these levels in a listening room. And if it is a recording there will be a noise level captured because the recording venue will not be the most silent room on the planet.
On the other hand one might want to have some headroom, be it for peace of mind or for some kind of EQ.
In the end it depends on the specific situation, but I repeat myself.
I agree with SIY

And even then, WHAT kind of distortion and noise with what kind of frequency content. There's an infinite number of variables, ...

And that is exactly what continued testing is about. Eliminate variables.

You cannot eliminate variables that define the situation. If you want to know the weight of a feather you have to specify what feather, among many other things.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well, this is basically my point : you can give a number after specifying the question.
The max dynamic in Amirs post is estimated to 130 dB, so higher than the best DACs so far.
But that is quite theoretical for reproduction of the loudest observed music signal levels in a room as silent as can possibly be built. I doubt anyone outside of a thought experiment really wants to recreate these levels in a listening room. And if it is a recording there will be a noise level captured because the recording venue will not be the most silent room on the planet.
On the other hand one might want to have some headroom, be it for peace of mind or for some kind of EQ.
In the end it depends on the specific situation, but I repeat myself.
I agree with SIY


You cannot eliminate variables that define the situation. If you want to know the weight of a feather you have to specify what feather, among many other things.

Reading Amir's report there is nuance needed. Dolby measured 130 db at concerts. They didn't specify at what distance (or maybe they did in the details of their paper). Have any recordings with that level of dynamic range? I'll answer that, no. You can create pure electronic music with any range. If you use microphones, there are limits.

 

[SIY]

And that is exactly what continued testing is about.

Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?

I may have my students make sure that the pH of degassed water is still 7. Who knows, maybe it's changed. That's what continued testing is about, right?