In Reply to: Re: nonsense posted by john curl on March 3, 2007 at 17:09:04:
I am quite well informed on this, I think, thanks. I bet I've tested and listened to many more sound cards than anyone reading this forum. I fight problems in (some of) them way too often, if fact. I read the disagreements, here, but they don't seem to hold water to me. Let me try to spell out why.
"First, sound cards DO effect the sound. IF they didn't, we would pronounce them perfect and not go any further"
Guys, just where did I say that sound cards don't affect the sound? I admit I'm not the best writer, but I know didn't write that, not ever. In fact I test soundcards regularly and have a pretty good idea what most can and can't do. OK, soundcards can and do affect the sound. There!
But, SO WHAT? So does every loudspeaker ever made. Yet, somehow, amazing as it is, people hear differences in equipment while listening through loudspeakers! Same with some amplifiers that can affect the sound. And the sound being changed was recorded with mics that affected the sound, too. Clearly these don't automatically invalidate testing, then, so why do they invalidate a differencing test?
Yet again: the soundcard CAN vary the sound, and still be quite usable, just as can the the incredibly imperfect loudspeakers we all use in domestic listening rooms. For the differencing test, the soundcard only has to respond to the difference, not reproduce it verbatim.
Yours and Jon's argument seems to be (correct me if my understanding is wrong) that:
(1) one can never detect a difference, even with mathematical processing, between two signals recorded with soundcards. Because the soundcards can affect the sound. Yet,
(2) a listener *can* regularly detect such differences, by ear. Even if a number of the components he listens through affect the sound, too. Even if they affect the sound more obviously than a soundcard does. Even if that listener is a constantly changing organism every minute, with changing moods, states of hunger, thirst, tiredness, age, etc. , never exactly the same for any two tests.
Can't you see why I disagree? Can the argument of "not enough resolution" be valid in the one case, yet not in the other?
I can rather easily make two recordings with an intentional inaudible difference, (inaudible to me, of course, who knows about others!) which difference can be exposed and made audible by the software. But I'd like to find situations where there are recordings that have differences that ARE said to be audible and can ALSO be exposed -- revealing the reported difference for more listeners -- by differencing. Now, surely, having that difference be audible can't automatically make it even MORE difficult to detect via differencing, could it??? The program can make something that is inaudible audible, it is not hard to do that. It doesn't seem to me to be much of a stretch to think that it could also render something that is audible to some (but not to others) more audible, and reduce disagreement about the situation.
Note that I have also not said that every difference can be resolved by this using any equipment. I sense people think I'm trying to prove nothing is audible unless it can be measured. I'm not. I don't care much about proving something that can't be proven like that. I'm only trying to make audible differences, if they exist, more obviously audible by removing the other program material that can mask them. If someone as a result finds that a differencing convinces them there is no relevant difference between two things they test, based on what they hear (or don't hear) themselves with their own ears, that will be their conclusion (which they are free to make).
Obviously, if a differencing test were made through a telephone, the difference test would leave (at least) obvious noise, and no conclusion could be made. But it wouldn't leave silence. There might be signal behind that noise, but not apparent SILENCE altogether. So that just becomes a simple case of inadequate equipment or setup for the test. That can easily be checked with a dummy test. We can all agree that the test can't be useful in all cases. But I think it can be useful in very many cases. Particularly useful, I think, is the characteristic that lets people evaluate audibility more readily using their ears to hear the difference recording, without feeling challenged or being unduly influenced by expectations in either direction. But I see that some here do not agree. Que Sera.
"the noise will still be added and will be at least 3 dB higher"
Yes, noise will increase 3dB, but if the 3dB increased noise is not heard, I submit that it doesn't matter. The noise is always there, and it is always 3dB higher than some other level. (Anyway, even if it did matter, it wouldn't be hard to eliminate the 3dB increase: the tests could be recorded twice for each case and each recording set for a case averaged coherently. That would reduce noise by 3dB again, back to even. We could even average more than two for each situation and *reduce* the overall noise if we wanted to!).
"Another really important factor is the OMISSION of information caused the the sound card. If the sound card was so good in the first place, would it omit infomation? Listening tells me that it does do just that."
John, you are aware that such omission is in terms of your mind's rediuced ability to extract meaning and impressions from a signal that now less resembles the original signal you can relate to. We don't hear with spectrum analyzers. We can't hear degraded hash as well as we can notice degraded music. Information is a matter of context. But subtraction is not a matter of context or affected by masking (it has that very significant advantage over traditional listening tests for difference). The missing information is not from some buried signal completely vanishing from the larger signal with no effect, how could it *possibly* do that??
"Another big problem is phase differences at both low and high frequencies. This might not be too much of a problem with a wire, but a component (such as a cap) would seriously suffer differences with another component."
That is true, agreed (and experienced). Very small mismatches leave rather large difference results, the amount is easy to calculate, infact (see the Help file of the program). But that only means that care must be taken to handle these KNOWN effects. I've done such a test with capacitors, which of course make a first order filter (hp or lp, depending) in combination with the source and load resistances. It is a simple matter of adding resistances (or extra capacitance) to match the rolloff characteristics; at line levels, a 10 turn trim pot in shunt somewhere has done well. There is even a simple response analyzer system built into DiffMaker to help in adjusting these. What if the caps aren't matched well enough? Then, it will show up as an existing difference (which it is). Might not some characteristic of that trimpot cause an audible difference? Maybe, but if so, that will show as a difference, too. But, clearly (to me, anyway) neither has ANY way to show a false null. Mistakes make differences, not nulls. Presumably interesting difference results will result in further exploration to detect whether we are getting fooled by such things.
There are some comments in this forum that the DiffMaker test suffers from the same objections as do ABX tests: that the hardware used for the test can invalidate the result due to lack of transparency. I submit that is just not so. Hardware might degrade signals, so that they become less easy for a human to relate to, because they sound less like something humans care about (music). That might be a factor with human listeners involved with music during ABX. But after differencing, the listening is only for absense or presence of remaining signal, the main common signal is gone. The hardware simply doesn't know what part of the signal it sees is the original music and what is from the change made by the cable/tweak/etc. It's all just "signal" to it, one thing. I'm surprised that that, at least doesn't seem obvious to others here. Hardware must treat all parts of the signal about the same, it has no way to selectively strip one part off, based on how it got there, so that effects of the change completely go away.
....and sheesh, I'm tired of writing about this. Good night, all.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Could this be the answer to the objectivist/subjectivist debate? - The Real Dick Hertz 13:12:18 02/27/07 (157)
- Even if the test were perfect... - andy_c 09:45:41 03/03/07 (1)
- How true... - Wellfed 11:44:43 03/03/07 (0)
- Even if the software were perfect .... - Jon Risch 20:16:54 03/01/07 (56)
- nonsense - bwaslo 15:55:46 03/03/07 (6)
- My Reply (long) - Jon Risch 16:33:58 03/12/07 (0)
- I raise you a Balderdash - Jon Risch 21:20:44 03/04/07 (0)
- Re: nonsense - john curl 17:09:04 03/03/07 (3)
- Re: Even if the software were perfect .... - tomservo 13:32:40 03/03/07 (1)
- Re: Even if the software were perfect .... - Jon Risch 16:37:48 03/12/07 (0)
- While what you say appears intuitively obvious to many, thanks for the well-thought-out details. Plus... - clarkjohnsen 11:26:54 03/02/07 (7)
- Re: trained listeners who are familiar with real differences - jensw 15:38:39 03/02/07 (2)
- Eggs Ackley! Does anything else make sense? nt - clarkjohnsen 13:03:47 03/03/07 (1)
- In the process from start to end, yes. In the end, no. nt - jensw 19:36:46 03/03/07 (0)
- Re: While what you say appears intuitively obvious to many, thanks for the well-thought-out details. Plus... - Ugly 12:49:28 03/02/07 (2)
- Thanks for the *rational* expansion of my thoughts, it contrasts nicely with the Floridian's. nt - clarkjohnsen 13:02:43 03/03/07 (1)
- Trained by whom? Tested how? Familiar with imaginary differences too? (nt) - AJinFLA 11:43:47 03/04/07 (0)
- ..trained listeners who are familiar with real differences. Right. Trained by self delusion. Certifiably superstitious. - AJinFLA 12:45:33 03/02/07 (0)
- Re: Even if the software were perfect .... - Ugly 10:01:27 03/02/07 (5)
- Re: Even if the software were perfect .... - Jon Risch 09:02:06 03/03/07 (4)
- Re: Even if the software were perfect .... - Ugly 14:51:45 03/03/07 (0)
- "Just not true." Worth repeating: Just not true. nt - clarkjohnsen 13:06:43 03/03/07 (2)
- Debatable! unproveable either way, although... - Ugly 14:56:39 03/03/07 (1)
- Doh! Magoo was blind wasn't he? Oh well, you get it NT - Ugly 15:10:03 03/03/07 (0)
- Without addressing each point of your well-thought reply... - The Real Dick Hertz 21:08:02 03/01/07 (32)
- Re: Without addressing each point of your well-thought reply... - Jon Risch 08:40:22 03/03/07 (21)
- Well, I never suggested any sound card... - The Real Dick Hertz 15:53:20 03/03/07 (19)
- Re: Well, I never suggested any sound card... - andy19191 02:47:20 03/04/07 (18)
- "They are simply asking you to accept their assertions about perceived sound differences." LOL! No way! - clarkjohnsen 10:25:51 03/05/07 (2)
- Absolutely correct - kerr 11:37:38 03/05/07 (1)
- But the "objectivists" just don't "get it". nt - clarkjohnsen 12:32:03 03/05/07 (0)
- Re: Well, I never suggested any sound card... - john curl 11:46:17 03/04/07 (14)
- Begging your pardon, but I've never claimed to be proficient in that field. Do, please, however... - clarkjohnsen 10:30:52 03/05/07 (0)
- Re: Well, I never suggested any sound card... - andy19191 13:46:54 03/04/07 (12)
- "Clark openly admits science does not apply to audio." Got some Chapter & Verse on that, pal? - clarkjohnsen 10:49:14 03/05/07 (0)
- Re: Well, I never suggested any sound card... - Jon Risch 21:13:05 03/04/07 (7)
- Damn, we almost met once! - clarkjohnsen 10:55:03 03/05/07 (0)
- Re: Well, I never suggested any sound card... - andy19191 00:52:22 03/05/07 (5)
- Andy, now let's see your CV...(nt) - mkuller 18:46:32 03/07/07 (0)
- "audiophile products like Klaus's resonating cups." Man you are a hoot! nt - clarkjohnsen 10:59:17 03/05/07 (0)
- Dismissed out of hand for supporting DIY cables - Jon Risch 10:15:57 03/05/07 (0)
- Re: Well, I never suggested any sound card... - john curl 09:12:28 03/05/07 (1)
- Well said, on the AES! I treated them similarly, although at greater length, in The Wood Effect. nt - clarkjohnsen 10:57:27 03/05/07 (0)
- Re: Well, I never suggested any sound card... - john curl 14:08:49 03/04/07 (2)
- This is all so sensible... I hope Mr. Waslo is following these threads. nt - clarkjohnsen 13:08:36 03/03/07 (0)
- Would you listen for... - mkuller 10:20:14 03/02/07 (0)
- I think he already answered that - E-Stat 08:22:55 03/02/07 (8)
- Then my next question would be... - The Real Dick Hertz 13:08:21 03/02/07 (7)
- "better resolution than most listeners' ears" - E-Stat 06:42:54 03/03/07 (6)
- I imagine soundcards by Lynx would fall into that catagory. - The Real Dick Hertz 16:12:56 03/03/07 (4)
- Did you note that Mr. Waslo - E-Stat 10:44:48 03/04/07 (3)
- Perhaps you could point that out in the link I provided. - The Real Dick Hertz 16:56:34 03/04/07 (2)
- Yes, "Chapter and Verse" please. nt - clarkjohnsen 13:09:34 03/03/07 (0)
- The real $64,000 question/s. - Ugly 11:19:10 02/28/07 (2)
- Any discovered differences will not be mappable onto actual sonic qualities... - clarkjohnsen 12:02:23 03/02/07 (1)
- Totally! That's what I'm afraid of. N/T - Ugly 12:56:02 03/02/07 (0)
- Like it or not, there is always sonic difference, cords or whatever. - cheap-Jack 07:39:23 02/28/07 (3)
- Re: Like it or not, there is always sonic difference, cords or whatever. - bwaslo 12:45:52 02/28/07 (2)
- This is exactly the sort of thing I have been suggesting as a first step - Analog Scott 16:50:56 02/27/07 (16)
- You've been suggesting something? - Pat D 06:00:32 02/28/07 (15)
- I have made many - Analog Scott 07:12:22 02/28/07 (14)
- Why don't you answer the question? - Pat D 08:11:42 02/28/07 (13)
- What don't you understand about "I have made many?" - Analog Scott 08:20:01 02/28/07 (12)
- Not responsive. Where are they? - Pat D 09:47:36 02/28/07 (11)
- Not responsive? I've answered your question twice. "Where are they?" On various audio forums - Analog Scott 14:57:34 02/28/07 (10)
- "J'habite la voie lactée . . ." - Pat D 07:10:15 03/01/07 (9)
- Wow. Arrogant AND pretentious. aucun texte ne suite. - robert young 15:33:02 03/01/07 (8)
- "addresse inutile sur des milliards de milles" - Pat D 18:51:23 03/01/07 (7)
- Really?? "Too much?" - robert young 10:35:26 03/02/07 (6)
- Did you follow the conversation? - Pat D 11:39:07 03/02/07 (5)
- I don't think anyone really WANTS an answer... - musetap 15:37:12 02/27/07 (58)
- Re: I don't think anyone really WANTS an answer... - bwaslo 16:16:19 03/03/07 (0)
- Re: I don't think anyone really WANTS an answer... - Dan Banquer 09:31:00 02/28/07 (56)
- A real job....like you? LOL!...(nt) - mkuller 10:01:39 02/28/07 (55)
- You're mistaken - E-Stat 10:34:22 02/28/07 (0)
- So how are things in the mail room Mike? - Dan Banquer 10:04:25 02/28/07 (53)
- Re: So how are things in the mail room Mike? - morricab 13:51:24 02/28/07 (52)
- The answer is obvious in his reply - E-Stat 06:33:47 03/01/07 (5)
- Pearls Before Swine - Dan Banquer 13:43:00 03/05/07 (4)
- Did you get your Clever Little Clock yet? - Dan Banquer 05:13:01 03/01/07 (45)
- Re: Did you get your Clever Little Clock yet? - morricab 05:47:44 03/04/07 (36)
- Re: Did you get your Clever Little Clock yet? - Dan Banquer 10:17:35 03/05/07 (1)
- Re: Did you get your Clever Little Clock yet? - andy19191 07:44:06 03/04/07 (34)
- As you know - E-Stat 10:52:18 03/04/07 (33)
- Re: As if you do? - Dan Banquer 13:03:40 03/05/07 (32)
- Is this why your company failed? - E-Stat 17:05:35 03/05/07 (31)
- I closed my company due to................. - Dan Banquer 04:33:07 03/06/07 (30)
- Full details of my systems have been available for years - E-Stat 19:01:39 03/06/07 (4)
- No CLC? - Dan Banquer 06:38:56 03/07/07 (3)
- Re: I closed my company due to................. - morricab 07:37:55 03/06/07 (24)
- Re: I closed my company due to................. - Dan Banquer 09:53:32 03/06/07 (5)
- Re: I closed my company due to................. - morricab 17:17:55 03/06/07 (4)
- Re: "puts me in bed with Geoff Kait and his ilk" - geoffkait 08:07:22 03/06/07 (12)
- Re: "puts me in bed with Geoff Kait and his ilk" - morricab 17:16:01 03/06/07 (11)
- Re: "puts me in bed with Geoff Kait and his ilk" - Dan Banquer 06:44:00 03/07/07 (1)
- Re: "puts me in bed with Geoff Kait and his ilk" - morricab 07:24:13 03/07/07 (0)
- Re: "Beyond debating your products" - geoffkait 02:37:48 03/07/07 (8)
- Re: "Beyond debating your products" - morricab 07:22:42 03/07/07 (7)
- Re: "Light Matter Interaction" - geoffkait 07:55:47 03/07/07 (6)
- Re: "Light Matter Interaction" - morricab 09:47:31 03/07/07 (5)
- Re: "Light Matter Interaction" - geoffkait 10:02:35 03/07/07 (4)
- One last thing - morricab 07:40:49 03/06/07 (4)
- Oh yeah; I'm just laughing so hard on that one. - Dan Banquer 09:57:31 03/06/07 (3)
- Re: Oh yeah; I'm just laughing so hard on that one. - morricab 02:07:16 03/07/07 (2)
- Re: Oh yeah; I'm just laughing so hard on that one. - Dan Banquer 04:28:13 03/07/07 (1)
- Re: Oh yeah; I'm just laughing so hard on that one. - morricab 07:25:01 03/07/07 (0)
- Hypocrisy? - robert young 15:28:05 03/01/07 (0)
- Who turned YOUR business upside down - you...(nt) - mkuller 10:01:43 03/01/07 (6)
- Do you have your Clever Little Clock Yet?nt - Dan Banquer 13:06:46 03/05/07 (5)
- So when will your earthshattering article with SM on NFB debut at alcoholics? - E-Stat 17:41:56 03/05/07 (4)
- There is no answer... - mkuller 14:55:52 02/27/07 (0)
- LOL! It won't even let one assess the difference between CD and vinyl! Or, more strictly speaking... - clarkjohnsen 13:51:40 02/27/07 (5)
- Re: LOL! It won't even let one assess the difference between CD and vinyl! Or, more strictly speaking... - bwaslo 14:13:58 02/27/07 (4)
- Immune to irony and humor, I see. Very well, carry on. nt - clarkjohnsen 10:30:54 02/28/07 (0)
- Shooting the test down before hearing it. - The Real Dick Hertz 14:25:44 02/27/07 (1)
- Lots... - Wellfed 14:52:50 02/27/07 (0)
- Re: LOL! It won't even let one assess the difference between CD and vinyl! Or, more strictly speaking... - bwaslo 14:15:35 02/27/07 (0)
- Well, the $64,000 question is - E-Stat 13:23:20 02/27/07 (7)
- Re: Well, the $64,000 question is - bwaslo 14:03:37 02/27/07 (5)
- Well - E-Stat 15:57:58 02/27/07 (4)
- Re: Well - bwaslo 17:36:13 02/27/07 (1)
- I'll combine responses to both your posts - E-Stat 08:25:22 02/28/07 (0)
- Re: Well - bwaslo 17:26:56 02/27/07 (1)
- Well, if your intent isn't to take away my toys... - Wellfed 19:01:58 02/27/07 (0)
- Well it's just the 1.01 version... nt - clarkjohnsen 13:52:15 02/27/07 (0)
You can not post to an archived thread.