Debate Thread: Scott's Hi-res Audio Test - Page 37 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 734Likes
 
Thread Tools
post #1081 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 01:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaJoJo View Post
hehe
i like turning up the volume and listen to loud distorted music. having it on high volume i have to deal with the >1% distortion factor from the amp added. still i think this conversation is sorta the base of a new era for soundproducing stuff.
How is the speaker distortion at those levels? Probably more than the amps.
CharlesJ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1082 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 01:12 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
The Sound and Vision CD player and amplifier tests are probably among the best documented ABX tests around.

Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
Thank you Arny. Do you have a copy of this article yourself and online?

Also, I am not sure if you understood my question. I was not asking for "best documented" but rather, the best examples of ABX tests and why. How would you rate the correctness of this test for example on a score of 1 to 10 with 10 being perfection?

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk
Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)

Any gaps might be filled in by reference to Clark's JAES article introducting ABX

Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.
So no AVR or DAC tests Arny? And nothing covering equipment I might buy in this decade?

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk
However, given the trouble that a simple reading exercise such as: "Some amplifiers/DACs/etc. sound the same and some sound different" seems to have produced, I don't have much hope for this far lengthier and more complex stuff.
I am sorry to be frustrating you Arny. As you said, my IQ has one less digit than yours so you have to show some patience as I catch up to your thinking.

Just to be clear, my question about best examples of ABX tests was not related to our discussion this morning. As far as that discussion, I don't know why it is so hard to state what our position is with respect to people saying the DACs they are buying now sound different. Do we get to as a matter of "universal truth" declare their subjective experience false, or as you say here that there certainly exists possibility of some DACs sounding different? I don't think we can say it both ways which is my read of your posts today.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1083 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 01:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,967
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 596
I have a copy of the '86 Stereo Review article Amir but it'll cost ya!

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
post #1084 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 01:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post
How is the speaker distortion at those levels? Probably more than the amps.
I thought we showed conclusively that argument to be false. No data was shown whatsoever that speaker distortion masks electronics distortion.

The notion that we can take distortion percentages to decide "who is on top" may make layman sense but has no basis in any listening test data or theory of audibility of these distortions. Mind you, it may happen to be the case in some situations but no way is it "universal truth" that we want to make it be.

So please, let's not throw these arguments around especially when it was just shown to have no merit. This game will not be won or lost based on debating tactics masquerading as technical arguments. Let's show forward progress and stop rehashing our party lines which ultimately have no basis in "science of audio."

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1085 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 01:21 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post
I have a copy of the '86 Stereo Review article Amir but it'll cost ya!
It already did. I think I paid almost $20 for a copy I found on ebay. I have to go and find it in the mess that I call my "den."

My question was intended to make sure Arny has a copy and is placing praise with full knowledge of what is written there.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1086 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 01:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,967
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 596
I wouldn't have asked for money. Maybe something like helping out an old person who was struggling with their groceries.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
post #1087 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 02:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I thought we showed conclusively that argument to be false.
It appears that in your mind Amir, anything that does not conform to your agenda is quickly to be shown to be false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
No data was shown whatsoever that speaker distortion masks electronics distortion.
Let's be fair. No data was shown whatsoever that speaker distortion doesn't mask electronics distortion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
The notion that we can take distortion percentages to decide "who is on top" may make layman sense but has no basis in any listening test data or theory of audibility of these distortions.
That theory must be your theory, Amir since you are the one posting it. That must be why it is so easy to prove to be false.

My theory is that if the kind and order of distortion is similar enough, and/or if the masking distortion is grossly larger than the distortion to be masked, then masking will take place.

If you don't like that, take it up with Zwicker and Fastl and the people who write perceptual coders! ;-) They seem to think it is true...

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Mind you, it may happen to be the case in some situations but no way is it "universal truth" that we want to make it be.
Thanks Amir for admitting that you want everything to be a universal truth. That has actually been pretty clear for a long time.

I favor a little more selectivity and finesse, but every time I try to show the relevant details, you seem to be incapable of following the discussion.

Rabbit holes, anybody? ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
So please, let's not throw these arguments around especially when it was just shown to have no merit. This game will not be won or lost based on debating tactics masquerading as technical arguments.
Tell that to your slick Canadian buddy who works for an audio company. I don't know his name because he only posts under a made-up alias. He's obviously your friend. What's his real name?

I'm wracking my brain for the name of a Canadian audio company that only does about a third of their business in speakers. Got any ideas?

Last edited by arnyk; 06-26-2014 at 02:28 PM.
arnyk is offline  
post #1088 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 02:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
It already did. I think I paid almost $20 for a copy I found on ebay. I have to go and find it in the mess that I call my "den."

My question was intended to make sure Arny has a copy and is placing praise with full knowledge of what is written there.
I have no copies of the SR CD player article.

I despair of Amir trying to make sense of anything this complex because he's obviously already missed the fairly obvious point that the sound quality of CD players is strongly affected by their DACs.
arnyk is offline  
post #1089 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 03:48 PM
Senior Member
 
hevi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
...he's obviously already missed the fairly obvious point that the sound quality of CD players is strongly affected by their DACs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Yes, its kinda hard for many high end true believers to accept that there are no audible differences between their sacred DACs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Indeed, as long as people read "Some amplifiers/DACs/etc. sound the same and some sound different" as "Everything sounds the same", as many seem prone to do, it does seem to be a hopeless cause.
I think I got this all figured out now:

At first, I think we can all agree that the above statements from arny do not make any sense at all.
But using my triple digit IQ the solution was soon obvious - we just need to add a fourth dimension and then project each of arny's forum posts into the correct parallel universe.

Then, you can just mentally transcend into either one of the vastly different universes, and what seemed like incoherent ramblings and contradictions here, in our dimensionally restricted world, will make perfect sense.


Last edited by hevi; 06-26-2014 at 04:18 PM.
hevi is offline  
post #1090 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 03:59 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
It appears that in your mind Amir, anything that does not conform to your agenda is quickly to be shown to be false.
Hi Arny. Thanks for the answer. My agenda is to make sure what we say is technically correct. When someone makes the fantastical claim that a speaker masks electronics distortion I am going to raise my hand and say: "sorry, no." It may make lay sense and be sellable as something sounds like it is technically true, but as with any other pseudoscience argument, it has to be called false and request for proof made.

It is remarkable how often this argument is used yet when I ask for any listening tests or references to prove it, all we got was a theory around "speaker doppler effect." Even if we had not invalidated that argument, it would not have been remotely sufficient to back up these routine arguments we throw around.

Has doppler effect been your foundation for making this claim/argument all along?

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk
Let's be fair. No data was shown whatsoever that speaker distortion doesn't mask electronics distortion.
??? So how does this work Arny? Can I make a fantastical claim and when you ask for listening test data and references go on to say: "well, you have not shown any data to the contrary so I must be right." Would you go and run tests for any theory I put forward with which you disagree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk
My theory is that if the kind and order of distortion is similar enough, and/or if the masking distortion is grossly larger than the distortion to be masked, then masking will take place.
Ok with your substantial narrowing of your argument, we can say the theory can be plausible. The trick now is to define those conditions. Take Meyer and Moran test of "high resolution" audio which we discussed earlier in this thread. This is a picture of their audio system:



Does your theory say what was masked by the speaker that wouldn't have otherwise?

Also please kindly note that my objection to this argument is in its non-discriminant use as repeated today:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post
How is the speaker distortion at those levels? Probably more than the amps.
Speaker distortions were no barrier to you hearing differences in amplifiers in your test. So it would reason that this application is false. Yes?

Back to your point, I have not see this narrowing of the definition until now. Here is an example of your own use Arny:

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
After looking at 100's of lab test results from dozens of public and private labs as well as my own tests I can certify that the above results from the prestigious and excellent Canadian National Research Center (NRC) are very typical. There are some speaker drivers that do a little better - almost 60 dB (9 bits) but that is about it.

This is just one of several reasons why so many of us call BS when people claim to be able to hear differences between even just mediocre DACs with artifacts 100 dB down. It is all about those speakers that are 40 dB worse on the best days of their lives!
Doesn't it look like you are just going by magnitude of the distortions and not their characteristics? There is no explanation and analysis of DACs and speakers to show that their distortions are similar.
stereoeditor likes this.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1091 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 04:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 89
So a second or third harmonic from a speaker non linearity has a different frequency than that of a amplifier/dac non linearity?
This must be true because Amir didn't get an explanation and analysis.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #1092 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 04:53 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Derks View Post
So a second or third harmonic from a speaker non linearity has a different frequency than that of a amplifier/dac non linearity?
This must be true because Amir didn't get an explanation and analysis.
Well, you tell me. Here is Arny's amplifier test conclusions:



How come their speakers didn't mask amplifier differences?

I don't know made up this argument but whoever it was, must have had as low as IQ as I have. Because it is far more damaging to our camp than the other. Imagine how many negative outcomes of double blind tests performed with speaker that can now be dismissed on these grounds. "Oh, they used speakers and that is why they didn't hear the differences in electronics." I think we should pack our bags and go home already .

Please let's not waste more time and space with hand waving arguments. If you have data, let's see it. Otherwise these posts only serve to confirm that we have none.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1093 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 04:54 PM
Senior Member
 
stereoeditor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
I don't know about anyone else but I am lost Arny
Well, if it is of any comfort, even with my three digit IQ, I must admit I am too struggling a bit here.
I thought I had almost grasped how Arny's mutually contradictory statements make sense, but as he has now pointed out that my technical education was inadequate, I realized that I was fooling myself.


John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
stereoeditor is offline  
post #1094 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 05:19 PM
Senior Member
 
hevi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post
I thought I had almost grasped how Arny's mutually contradictory statements make sense, but as he has now pointed out that my technical education was inadequate, I realized that I was fooling myself.


John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

While I am pretty sure you, with your inadequate English education, and "two digit" amirm will not be able to grasp it, I pretty much have it all figured out; -what needs to be in place to make sense of arnys posts. Continue reading the thread and arny's posts will all make perfect sense in the end (provided you're open to alternative explanations).


Last edited by hevi; 06-26-2014 at 05:29 PM. Reason: Mistakenly entered the wrong projection of arnyk's universes before posting
hevi is offline  
post #1095 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 05:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Take Meyer and Moran test of "high resolution" audio which we discussed earlier in this thread. This is a picture of their audio system:



Does your theory say what was masked by the speaker that wouldn't have otherwise?

Speaker distortions were no barrier to you hearing differences in amplifiers in your test. So it would reason that this application is false. Yes?
Meyers and Moran was about two different kinds of audible flaws which are lumped together as "High Resolution Audio":

(1) Bandpass limitations or high frequency extension (sample rate)

(2) Dynamic range (number of bits per sample)

Neither of these are forms of nonlinear distortion, whether amplitude modulation distortion or frequency modulation distortion.

The discussion was about deterministic frequency modulation distortion that produced distinct sidebands. The Meyer and Moran test was utterly and completely irrelevant to coherent FM distortion or in other words the deterministic jitter that we have been talking about.

Nice try, but no cigar!
arnyk is offline  
post #1096 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 05:44 PM
Senior Member
 
stereoeditor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Let's show forward progress and stop rehashing our party lines which ultimately have no basis in "science of audio."
"Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification." - Karl Popper

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
stereoeditor is offline  
post #1097 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 06:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
How come their speakers didn't mask amplifier differences?
Because the flaws that were present in only one amplifier were maybe 10 dB down, more or less. I didn't happen to have my THD analyzer along with me (its residual distribution was about 80 dB down in those days), so I don't know exactly how good the amps were.

Note, the artifacts in one of the amps weren't the sort of -70 to -140 dB artifacts that some around here like to wave around as if they were serious threats to sound quality and scare small boys.

I've been over this several times before just lately, hence the comments about dealing with people with either zero memories or very low IQs. I fear that I could give them the one word cure for cancer and they would blink their eyes and forget it. ;-)

Last edited by arnyk; 06-26-2014 at 06:18 PM.
arnyk is offline  
post #1098 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 06:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post
"Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification." - Karl Popper
It is true that the application of science to audio as fostered by ABX tests greatly simplifies it by removing the unnecessary false complexities that creep in due to the inherent flaws of sighted evaluations as practiced proudly by certain audio publications.

Last edited by arnyk; 06-26-2014 at 06:17 PM.
arnyk is offline  
post #1099 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 06:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Derks View Post
So a second or third harmonic from a speaker non linearity has a different frequency than that of a amplifier/dac non linearity?
The second order amplitude modulation distortion produced by a speaker playing back say 50 Hz creates an artifact at 100 Hz.

The second order amplitude modulation distortion produced by an amplifier playing back say 50 Hz creates an artifact at 100 Hz.

The second order amplitude modulation distortion produced by an DAC playing back say 50 Hz creates an artifact at 100 Hz.

The second order amplitude modulation distortion produced by an analog tape machine playing back say 50 Hz creates an artifact at 100 Hz.

Amir seems to want us believe that if these artifacts had the same amplitude they would still sound different.
arnyk is offline  
post #1100 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 06:15 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Meyers and Moran was about two different kinds of audible flaws which are lumped together as "High Resolution Audio":

(1) Bandpass limitations or high frequency extension (sample rate)

(2) Dynamic range (number of bits per sample)

Neither of these are forms of nonlinear distortion, whether amplitude modulation distortion or frequency modulation distortion.

The discussion was about deterministic frequency modulation distortion that produced distinct sidebands. The Meyer and Moran test was utterly and completely irrelevant to coherent FM distortion or in other words the deterministic jitter that we have been talking about.
Hi Arny. You must have forgotten what the Meyer and Moran test was because it was neither (1) nor (2). They took the *analog* output of a SACD/DVD-A player and ran it through an A/D and D/A conversion which was set to 16 bits/44.1 KHz. No attempt was made to change the sample rate, or reduce bit depth. Those are digital notions and were not tested parameters.

That aside, you are saying that the speakers had higher resolving/reproduction power than 16 bits/44.1 Khz signal. Or else the exercise would be moot. Is that correct?

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1101 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 06:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Hi Arny. You must have forgotten what the Meyer and Moran test was because it was neither (1) nor (2). They took the *analog* output of a SACD/DVD-A player and ran it through an A/D and D/A conversion which was set to 16 bits/44.1 KHz. No attempt was made to change the sample rate, or reduce bit depth. Those are digital notions and were not tested parameters.
That is in terms of the effect of the processing, a false claim. The passage of the so-called high resolution recordings (all proudly distributed at higher sample rates than 44/16) through a 44/16 channel (what the A/D and D/A conversion which was set to 16 bits/44.1 KHz accomplished) had a very similar effect as simple downsampling and word length reduction would have had in the digital domain.

The component interfaces were analog but the measurable results could have been so similar that it might even be impossible to tell whether the resolution and sample rate reduction was implemented in the analog domain or the digital domain.

I say this with confidence because I tried a similar experiment some years back ca. Y2k, well before the Meyers and Moran experiments. The back-to back converters were components of a M-Audio Flying Cow which despite its cutesy name was actually a pretty good product for the day.
arnyk is offline  
post #1102 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 07:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Valencia, Ca
Posts: 3,736
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 389 Post(s)
Liked: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaJoJo View Post
i like turning up the volume and listen to loud distorted music. having it on high volume i have to deal with the >1% distortion factor from the amp added.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post
How is the speaker distortion at those levels? Probably more than the amps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I thought we showed conclusively that argument to be false. No data was shown whatsoever that speaker distortion masks electronics distortion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Speaker distortions were no barrier to you hearing differences in amplifiers in your test. So it would reason that this application is false. Yes?

Now hoold on there, Baba Louie. You are equating DaJoJo hearing distortions while his system is overdriven to ArnyK picking out electronic distortions from a defective amp. You've trotted out Arny's test a hundred times and I don't recall where they were listening at overdriven levels, AKA "11" which DaJoJo is obviously referencing. Can you pick out electronic vs speaker distortion at overdrive levels?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I thought we showed conclusively that argument to be false. No data was shown whatsoever that speaker distortion masks electronics distortion.
Obviously this was positioned as an absolute when in actuality it need conditions and parameters applied to make it a true statement. Your Honor, I move that the above testimony be stricken from the record.


Tack is offline  
post #1103 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 08:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DaJoJo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,098
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 326 Post(s)
Liked: 768
on the dac thingy i can say a child has a better hearing then we old people have and the kid is most honest and has been teached to have his own opinion and not say what we like to hear. the kid says he smells smoke and it stinks according to him (i do smoke a lot) and this while i'm entering the room at approx 5meter distance. he tells me the sound is cleaner than it was with my older amp on the same speakers, listening to non-overdriven and non-distorted music. most of this is due to the dac's coz i have the same digital input via spdif on the avr and the new yamaha amplification section is the same sort of amp as the older one. it was noted some amps sound different but this can only be due to the components used. afaik yamaha didn't change any to a point of that it would be hearable as different sound. comparing a 24 bit to a 32 bit dac there is definatly hearable difference imho.
blind tested the kid can even hear when i move my front speakers about 5 degrees in angle. test 1 being a ask for change in sound and didn't move speakers. test 2 being move the angle 5 degrees and play the same music again. my little brother noted the same thing (he is 35 just in case one is thinking lol).

i just have to agree with tack here. am i being misinterpreted here ? most definatly. i clearly said that i listen to distorted music , with which i mean the music itself is distorted electronic music and was ment to be this way. note the fact that it has nothing to do with distortion of any component used to playback this music. and i play this distorted sounding music on my system on "11"if you will or at +5dB on volume of avr. to the question "How is the speaker distortion at those levels? Probably more than the amps" i can say that i have klipsch speakers that will do 150W rms and the amp is doing a 110W approx. so the answer is: no they do not distort as much as the amp does, they play the overdriven distorted music very well without any trouble doing so.

to Chu Gai's comments : i can totally agree with this. it has been a lot of mud-throwing and not so much science. throwing facts and measurement on the table, but there is a severe lack of understanding what each says and means. one wants to be more right then the other and it does not add to the discussion of how much digital distortion can actually be heared, which in case of the hmdi interface is not so much. if the hdmi interface is not properly buffered electrically as we can see on the onkyo that it introduces a lot of jitter and together with a mild form of ground-loop or electrical inbalance creates jitter of which some can actually be heared by trained people and perhaps even by not so trained people as amirm explained to us. that we do not see or hear it in all devices which have this hdmi interface is due to good engeneering, but it doesn't take away the fact that there is a problem with hmdi as such. up till now i have not seen any solid proof that there isn't.

Klipsch fronts 2xRF-82-II 150W 33Hz-24KHz
center RC-64-II 200W 59Hz-24KHz
sides 2xRS-62-II 150W 50Hz-24KHz
rears 2xRB-81-II 150W 44Hz-24KHz
Yamaha RX-A3040, YST-SW800 Sub 1000W RMS 6 Ohm 18-170 hz / SVS PB13-Ultra 1000W 14-200hz
Audioquest 1.6mm wire / Samsung UE-ES8000S TV+evo 2014 / Sony Playstation 3/ AC PlayonHD2
DaJoJo is offline  
post #1104 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 10:46 PM
Senior Member
 
spkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaJoJo View Post
it has been a lot of mud-throwing and not so much science. throwing facts and measurement on the table, but there is a severe lack of understanding what each says and means.
Hate to break it to you but you seem to be having a severe lack of understanding what the big picture is here. Click on this link and it will guide you to the right direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaJoJo View Post
but it doesn't take away the fact that there is a problem with hmdi as such.
What kind of factual problem is that and how did you learn about that?
spkr is offline  
post #1105 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 11:24 PM
Senior Member
 
UndersAVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I apologize as my two-digit IQ is not enabling me to understand your post. But I did note the reference to the Onkyo HDMI review from NWAVguy.
Please forgive my lack of clarity. There was no intent to be rude. I didn't realize that you possess a double digit IQ. I'm not sure why you refer to NWAVguy and cite from the Archimago website. In any account, in my previous post I attempted to illustrate that you were:

- *previously* dismissive of the archimago hdmi/optical measurements (which demonstrate the inaudibility of hdmi jitter) on the grounds of poor speculation (computer soundcards aren't properly calibrated and the authors measurements are invalid because a soundcard was used; and claiming that measurement of the Onkyo model 1009 is invalid because you obtained different measurements with product 8xx)

- dishonest when citing from the website (citing the author "hdmi is quite jittery," but ommitting that he/she indicated "inaudibly jittery")

- hypocritical in that you claimed the archimago author's measurements are invalid in a previous discussion on the topic of jitter, but in this discussion embrace his information on the basis that it matches your opinion and because he is, like you, an engineer

IOW, your reasoning is as useful as screen door on a submarine; regardless of IQ and other credentials that you bring to the conversation. Earlier, you warned others against listening to some dude citing tidbits on the Internet. Consider that its YOU who loses credibility when you weakly cite from the SAME source as the dude; quoting a portion that suits your belief, while ignoring the more substantial portions that doesn't. Tut, tut.

Are these 'Internet tidbits' valid, or are they just unworthy bits from unworthy tids?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I wonder if you saw the reference to ground loop in the comments section? If not, lets look at that: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/1...receivers.html
I did see this. The measurement involves analog connectivity to the sound source, not hdmi.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Here, he is testing the analog pass-through in the Onkyo TX-NR1009 AVR. Initially he finds it to have excellent performance with noise levels that are down some 110 db. But a remarkable thing happens when he hooks up a Blu-ray player to its HDMI input and connects the HDMI output to his display:

As excited as I am about those results above, a modern AV receiver is meant to process HDMI and be connected to a TV. This receiver has a HDMI "passthrough" which is essentially always in operation and for most people, it would not be left in "Pure Audio" mode with all the video gear disconnected. As such, look what happens when I connect my LG 55LW5600 TV (55" passive 3D, LED TV from 2011) to the ONKYO and repeated the measurements:

Noise floor raises way, way higher to -77 to -79 db:



Ugly, my friends... Clearly having the TV HDMI connected has injected very significant amount of noise in the system! Dynamic range has dropped to ~80dB across the board (equivalent to 13-bits). Notice a very strong 60Hz mains hum which is even showing up in the frequency response graph... What is happening here is that I'm seeing the effect of ground loops. There are ways to overcome this of course.

Ugly my friends! Recall that I pointed out the same thing in my measurements. That even when using S/PDIF input, mere act of connecting the source to the HDMI processor/AVR degraded its performance. That degradation was very small but this one is massive.

So don't go celebrating that "this reviewer" said HDMI is fine. It is not fine. HDMI electrically couples of the products together, making a long chain that can suffer from ground loops and noise transmission.
Maybe where analog audio connections are concerned, but the Onkyo did not suffer the same problem when HDMI was used for audio purposes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Again, this was all on the NWAVguy's web site. So please read the information you are citing. Don't just go for headlines. If not me, there will be another double digit IQ person who would call you on lack of due diligence.
Come again. Its not me lacking dilligence, it's YOU!

Okay, in the past amir and rant bud, DonHo, have relegated me (UndersAVS) to some dude posting tidbits from the Internet trying to shout down the mighty Microsoft Exec, business owner, and degreed Engineer. How dare! No chance that UndersAVS will earn those AVS oak leaf clusters. Folks, bear with me please.

Amir points out the website's Onkyo AVR analog measurements, revealing ground loop/TV/hdmi related problems, but totally ignores the website measurement of HDMI performance with TV and Blu-ray player connected and powered-on; -108.8dB or better. Quote:

"Since I want to check the performance in a more "naturalistic" fashion, I made sure the TV was connected and on as well as my Blu-ray player (Panasonic BMP-TD220). Remember that in my previous post, plugging in the HDMI TV cable added significant noise to the analogue pass-through. All results were made with the Onkyo in "Pure Audio" mode to defeat any audio DSP/bass management."

"MEASUREMENTS: ONKYO TX-NR1009 as HDMI / SPDIF DAC... Are AV Receivers any good?"

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/1...9-as-hdmi.html



The -78dB noise that amir mentions from the same website, but different page, is ANALOG performance, NOT HDMI PERFORMANCE, and caused by ground loop interference.

"MEASUREMENTS: Separate vs. AV Receivers (Emotiva XSP-1 vs. Denon AVR-3802 vs. Onkyo TX-NR1009) as Analogue Preamp."

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/1...receivers.html

The bottomline, is that hdmi performance was not degraded by the ground loop error and the noise measurement is excellent.

Last edited by UndersAVS; 06-26-2014 at 11:38 PM.
UndersAVS is offline  
post #1106 of 2920 Old 06-26-2014, 11:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
trans_lux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In my theater
Posts: 981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 137
I know this has been brought up before....
How many of the naysayers have actually listened to modern reference grade audio? I'm not talking about at a show in a hotel room. But really taking the time to listen with complimentary supporting gear in a known environment with music that you are intimately familiar with.
My guess is very little if any.

Last edited by trans_lux; 06-26-2014 at 11:29 PM.
trans_lux is offline  
post #1107 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 05:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by trans_lux View Post
I know this has been brought up before....
How many of the naysayers have actually listened to modern reference grade audio? I'm not talking about at a show in a hotel room. But really taking the time to listen with complimentary supporting gear in a known environment with music that you are intimately familiar with.
My guess is very little if any.
Speaking for myself I find your post hard to act on because of the lack of a formal definition for "Modern reference grade audio".

I still keep an eye on the mutterings of the usual high end audio eggspurts, and find that they can't agree on what that is any better than anybody else.

Every once in a while I end up in somebody's listening room and am faced with a collection of the makes and models of equipment that are highly praised by someone who thinks that they are important in the high end world. SQ is all over the map, sometimes good, sometimes not so good.

Conventional wisdom among objectivists is that far and away the most important thing is loudspeakers and room acoustics. That even seems to be true even when the electronics are blessed by the usual high end audio authorities.

Friendly advice - if you want people to follow a course of action, give them something well-defined to follow. So far, not so much.
arnyk is offline  
post #1108 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 06:25 AM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 23,099
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 480
posts deleted/ a member asked to leave

if you guys could remember: do not reply to a problematic post: just report it to mods to handle

please take the high road in every post
if you see a problematic post, please do not quote it or respond to it: report it to the mods to handle
markrubin is offline  
post #1109 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 07:34 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Conventional wisdom among objectivists is that far and away the most important thing is loudspeakers and room acoustics. That even seems to be true even when the electronics are blessed by the usual high end audio authorities.
Good morning Arny. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response overnight.

As to your comment, I don't know if it is "wisdom" or another case of trying to change the topic from electronics to something unrelated as the room.

But let's go with that. Yesterday I post the picture of the "critical" listening room of Meyer and Moran. Here it is again:



I see a carpet and hard surfaces elsewhere. Speakers also seem to be close to the rear wall. Seeing how objectivists believe in this test, and their paper was "peer reviewed," is this what people should be doing to be in our camp?

I don't recall what speaker brand or model they used. Do you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk
Friendly advice - if you want people to follow a course of action, give them something well-defined to follow. So far, not so much.
Thank you for the kind advice. I am doing my best but I am not always able to be cogent in everything I write. I hope you forgive my failings in that regard.

I do believe there are specifics above though to follow. We have a great test case of whether we believe in what we say. As you say, we pepper every other post on this topic with the comment you mentioned about the room and speaker. I suspect that "high-end" customers care far more about these topics than the so called objectivists. But I am ready to be proven wrong .

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1110 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 08:01 AM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Good morning Arny. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response overnight.

As to your comment, I don't know if it is "wisdom" or another case of trying to change the topic from electronics to something unrelated as the room.

But let's go with that. Yesterday I post the picture of the "critical" listening room of Meyer and Moran. Here it is again:



I see a carpet and hard surfaces elsewhere. Speakers also seem to be close to the rear wall. Seeing how objectivists believe in this test, and their paper was "peer reviewed," is this what people should be doing to be in our camp?

I don't recall what speaker brand or model they used. Do you?


Thank you for the kind advice. I am doing my best but I am not always able to be cogent in everything I write. I hope you forgive my failings in that regard.

I do believe there are specifics above though to follow. We have a great test case of whether we believe in what we say. As you say, we pepper every other post on this topic with the comment you mentioned about the room and speaker. I suspect that "high-end" customers care far more about these topics than the so called objectivists. But I am ready to be proven wrong .
So you are saying that jitter detectability is inhibited by such a setup?
koturban is offline  
Closed Thread Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off