|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.229.29.71
In Reply to: RE: How is Archimago's equipment not "up to the task"... posted by Bob_C on January 27, 2016 at 11:23:57
Nice yardstick and atomic particles analogy. I agree.
Follow Ups:
LOL!
Atoms are tiny. I mean really tiny. If we are saying the difference between two components is just a "hair's breadth," in other words a very small difference, then an "atom's breadth" would be about one million times smaller.
If the differences between various digital formats are truly analogous to the size of atoms, then who cares? Who could even notice?
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Human hearing is able to resolve down to air molecule level. This has strong evolutionary benefits.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I think you're overstating your position. Human hearing is designed to respond to air pressure, but I'm guessing that it takes more than one air molecule to stimulate the ear.
Think of it: the ear drum is not made up of one atom, but millions of them. So is the bone structure in the ear. So are the hairs in the ear canal. So is the fluid in the ear canal. Having mass, the overall structure of the ear has an inherent inertia. I seriously doubt a singe O2 molecule, or CO2 molecule, or whatever kind of single, gaseous molecule striking the ear drum will be able to overcome the inertia present in the ear and so be "heard."
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
I am not overstating my position. This is known physics. It also relates to the design of microphones and explains why those that attempt low noise performance have to have large diaphragms. (These microphones do not have omnidirectional capability at high frequencies because of their larger size, also known physics.) Complicating matters is the question of bandwidth, which determines the time over which the ear averages these molecules.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Can you cite a verified experiment where a human perceptual difference was detected after the addition or removal of exactly one molecule of "air" in the ear canal? Actually, I would be much more interested in how they could actually do that, rather than the perceptual results. Some amazing experiment! But, as you say, it is well known. Ignorant, unsophisticated me, I am just totally unaware of it.
I never said that the human ear responds to a single air molecule. What I said is that it responds to the level of air molecule motion. Specifically, the thermal motion of random air molecules hitting the ear drum creates a noise spectrum and the ear is sensitive to this noise spectrum (or just about so, within a few dB, depending on the individual).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"What I said is that it responds to the level of air molecule motion."
OK, if this is what you are now asserting, then what's your point? Can't we say that all sorts of things respond to the level of air molecule motion? Like birds, or airplanes, or clipper ships, or ocean waves, or buildings being blown apart by tornadoes, or kites, or internal combustion engines or who knows how many other occurrences. What does this have to do with audio?
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
I think you're taking the atom analogy literally. It was used to make a point. If you don't get that, then there's no hope for you! ;-)
Actually, I was just trying to point out how juvenile and fatuous Bob_C's analogy was. I thought most of us left off the "I'm wrong? well you're a million times wrong!" type of arguments by the time our ages hit double digits. I guess I need to rethink that! ;)
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
I think communicating with you is rather useless. Sorry you cannot comprehend. If you think his blog worthwhile... Go in good health... Any thinking person would realize how difficult it is to measure MOST THINGS audio related even with the most expensive test equipment... So measurements done with toys makes zero sense IMO...
What "toys" was Archimago using? He posted in detail what he did and what his results were. If you follow his steps, do you get a different result?
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Attempting to measure high quality (or purported high quality) equipment with medium quality equipment is a fools errand. In general, one needs equipment that is a decimal order of magnitude better than the device under test, or else one needs super skills at instrument construction, instrument calibration, data reduction and statistics. (You will find people with these skills at CERN and other physics labs and at national standards bureaus.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
So only people at CERN or other physics labs at national standards bureaux are capable of measuring things? If so, how on earth do equipment manufactures get any work done? ;-)
I disagree that measurements made with less than SOTA equipment have no value. Perhaps measurements made with SOTA equipment may be more valuable, but even poor equipment can be capable of giving us a "ball park" measurement, and perhaps the ball park estimate is good enough to allow us to make a judgment.
In the case at hand, Archimago has shown that the differences between the formats, if any, are more than -70dB down in the mix. That may not be the precise figure, but it at least tells us the differences, if any, are small.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Don't we all know that many of these differences are small? I don't need any measurement to tell me that. Just my ears
Alan
Aren't the folks touting MQA saying it is revolutionary? That it "unlocks the resolution that is inside of digital files that we've never heard before?"
In my mind at least, for something to be revolutionary, heck, to even be meaningful, it's going to have to bring more to the table than differences -70dB down in the mix. I think Archimago's post is helpful in alerting consumers to proceed with caution with this product.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Do you understand what you are talking about with the -77dB difference from Diffmaker? What difference is he measuring in this? This is NOT the difference between an ordinary file played through a DAC & the same file with MQA treatment played through an MQA ENABLES DAC. What archi is attempting to measure is how close the MQA file might sound compared to the standard file when both are played back through a non-MQA enabled DAC - in other words how much does MQA encoding affect the playback on an ordinary non-MQA DAC.You don't seem to understand what Archimago's "measurement" even mean, never mind how useful they are.
It's always interesting how those with a particular axe to grind, latch onto any measurement, no matter how dubious to support their mindset. In this case you wildly misinterpret what Archi's article is about, as evidenced by your repeated quoting of his Diffmaker measurement as some sort of evidence that MQA is not providing any worthwhile sonic value.
I guess you also missed this in Archi's article "Sure, I would be curious to have a listen to an MQA decoding DAC."?
Edits: 02/01/16
Thanks for the reply!
I stand corrected.
I wish you all the best in your business, although as you probably surmise, I'm not likely to be a customer. :-)
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
If the difference on playback between an MQA enabled DAC and a non-MQA DAC is greater that -70 dB, then one or the other is broken!
When comparing two different reconstruction filters at a hi-res sample rate of 88.2 KHz or higher, the difference should be a lot smaller than that.
"If the difference on playback between an MQA enabled DAC and a non-MQA DAC is greater that -70 dB, then one or the other is broken!"
Who ever said that?
I think what Archi measured should be visited before passing comment, don't you think that would be wise?
In the case of the -77 dB result, there was no measurement, just a diff of the digital files.
If I understand the process correctly, MQA encoding as described in the AES paper should be transparent to at least the 16 bit level. So the differences between the clips Archimago compared are almost 20 dB higher than they should be. I can think of a few possible reasons why:
a. The MQA encoded file is not sourced from the same master as the original offered for comparison, in which case it's not a fair comparison.
b. The MQA encoded file was doctored in some way prior to encoding, in which case it's not a fair comparison.
c. The MQA process is not as transparent/faithful to source as claimed.
Other possibilities:
- Diffmaker's results are not reliable
- for instance, it's known that the first 200mS at the start & end of the files being compared causes unnaturally high difference values - an edge effect
- Diffmaker is particularly sensitive to phase differences
- it's really impossible to use Diffmaker to evaluate the audible difference between two files
I'm leaning against blaming Audio Diffmaker because it looks like he selected an appropriate clip and you can actually see a difference in the spectrum plot.
Maybe, but I thought the "yardstick to measure atomic particles" analogy was funny AND drove the point home.
Edits: 01/29/16
I thought it funny too. I just wanted to also point out how absurd it was.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Whack the cat with the yardstick and if it meows it's not dead.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thanks
Alan
We need to laugh... :)
And thank you for so consistently giving us something to laugh at!Keep posting those videos!
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Edits: 01/31/16
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: