I would say is not quite as random or different to everyone as you may assume. We use multiple listeners who are tested independently of each other. The average angular estimation can be pretty close for trained and practiced listeners who listen to the same reproduction system. Localization in a stereo sound field can also vary with frequency and or be spread out laterally due to clock jitter or other effects. Thus I gave approximate numbers in terms of +- a foot or so. IME we could get down to +- an inch or so under specific conditions.
Of possible related interest:
39 - The Magic in 2-Channel Sound Reproduction - Why is it so rarely heard?
The International Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology published Open Access my paper from the REPRODUCED SOUND 2015 Conference of the Institute of Acoustics in the UK (see 38 below).
34 - A Model for Rendering Stereo Signals in the ITD-Range of Hearing
Paper presented at the 133rd AES Convention, 2012 October 26, San Francisco, CA - Preprint #8713
Abstract, Manuscript, Presentation slides, Excerpts
33 - Hearing spatial detail in stereo recordings
Paper presented at the 26th TONMEISTERTAGUNG in Leipzig, Germany, 26 November 2010 in the session on Perception & Esthetics - Abstract - Manuscript - Slide presentation and Talk (0:24 hrs, 11.3 MB, mp3)
23 - Accurate sound reproduction from two loudspeakers in a living room, AES Section Meeting in London, November 2007. Listen to the Lecture recording (1:33 hours, 24.5 MB) while viewing the slide presentation.
19 - Siegfried Linkwitz, Which loudspeaker parameters are important to create the illusion of a live performance in the living room?, 113th AES Convention, Los Angeles, 2002, October 5-8, Preprint 5637, Abstract. Overhead slides of the presentation.
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/publications.htm
I have done several test showing that you are wrong.
When masking in a test the content of real 24/192 recordings (with lots ultrasonic harmonics) above 20khz and below 16 bits with uncorrelated content, the strongest believers in hi res preferred the crippled 20Khz 16 bit version.
But, this paper below describes a test of measuring alpha and beta beta brainwaves when people are listening to 20Khz limited recordings with and without added uncorrelated ultrasonics from a HF generator and no they didn't make the same errors as Oohashi.
http://www.m-hikari.com/ces/ces2014/ces21-24-2014/shimhanmoiCES21-24-2014.pdf
No independent person or institute so far has repeated this test confirming the results, so it's interesting but not yet validated.
The interesting part is that measuring brain waves is rather objective, but it seemed to correlate to the preference of the test group for the sound with added HF noise.
So in fact it comes close to what I did in my test, adding uncorrelated HF noise.
It's just another example of how wrong it is to jumping to conclusions to soon like you seem to do with 24/196.
I won't go in all the above noise discussions, that are all trying to find a reason why things have different sound, but I don't deny it's potential importance.
One quote is very interesting made by Cambridge's former head of engineering: give five people the same circuit diagram and let them build the amp.
The result will be that all five will sound slightly different.
This is just a very simple example to show how difficult it is to explain differences in sound perception.
Because you are so much focused on explanations, that jumping to wrong conclusions is almost inevitable.
Hans
Hans,
Wrong? I made no claim about ultrasonics.
To clarify my view:
The reason 192 may sound better than 44.1 has IMHO virtually nothing to do with ultrasonic content.
IME dacs often have a sweet spot in terms of their various reproduction modes. For AK4499 IMHO the sweet spot was at DSD256.
With other some other dacs I have had, higher sample rates sounded less distorted or had less modulator noise in the audio band, but not all dacs were like that.
So, when someone says hi-res sounds 'much' better than CD, I tend to interpret that more as statement about their dac's quirks, not ultrasonics.
That said, some people have jumped to an incorrect conclusion that the only possible explanation for hi-res sounding better had to be ultrasonics. I don't think so.
Mark
Wrong? I made no claim about ultrasonics.
To clarify my view:
The reason 192 may sound better than 44.1 has IMHO virtually nothing to do with ultrasonic content.
IME dacs often have a sweet spot in terms of their various reproduction modes. For AK4499 IMHO the sweet spot was at DSD256.
With other some other dacs I have had, higher sample rates sounded less distorted or had less modulator noise in the audio band, but not all dacs were like that.
So, when someone says hi-res sounds 'much' better than CD, I tend to interpret that more as statement about their dac's quirks, not ultrasonics.
That said, some people have jumped to an incorrect conclusion that the only possible explanation for hi-res sounding better had to be ultrasonics. I don't think so.
Mark
But still nothing but subjective especially considering that it is highly dependent on the listening environment.
Subjective perception can be measured objectively. For example, that's what a threshold of audibility is supposed to be.
OTOH, an oscilloscope waveform may be considered objective since it is a type of voltmeter, but interpretation of a waveform by a human can only be subjective.
For example, if someone told you, "Hey, looks like your amplifier is oscillating, that's how it looks on the scope." Then according to what you seem to be saying that its a totally useless statement since its just a subjective opinion.
Regarding using speakers in a room as a test equipment, like some other test equipment it may be more expensive than you can afford. Just because someone doesn't have their own Time Pod doesn't make someone else's close-in phase noise measurements unscientific or unobjective, does it? How about for any other piece of expensive test equipment you don't have?
OTOH, an oscilloscope waveform may be considered objective since it is a type of voltmeter, but interpretation of a waveform by a human can only be subjective.
For example, if someone told you, "Hey, looks like your amplifier is oscillating, that's how it looks on the scope." Then according to what you seem to be saying that its a totally useless statement since its just a subjective opinion.
Regarding using speakers in a room as a test equipment, like some other test equipment it may be more expensive than you can afford. Just because someone doesn't have their own Time Pod doesn't make someone else's close-in phase noise measurements unscientific or unobjective, does it? How about for any other piece of expensive test equipment you don't have?
Last edited:
Nor did I.
But evidence may be pointing in that direction when you read my posting and the added link.
O.k. Thats’s your personal experience, but realize that DSD256 is producing huge amounts of ultrasonic noise, already starting at ca 10Khz.
So maybe your alpha brain waves were stimulated ?
Compared to what ?
Did you produce a new 24/192 copied version but now brickwall filtered? That would be a fair way to compare.
But they may be right when the paper just given to you has really made a discovery.
Dagfinn made me aware of this paper.
I’m not jumping to this conclusion untill officially validated, but it’s at least food for new ideas.
My personal belief is still that all content above 20Khz and >16 bits is a waste of storage space.
But the TLC given at the recording side is very important and there are several properly executed blind test showing that 16/44.1 cannot be improved by other formats.
Hans
It does not make your subjective perception objective. It is still your subjective perception. Other people have different subjective perceptions. So no matter how you try to twist this your perception of soundstage is just your subjective opinion, nothing else.
Hans,
I am aware of controversy surrounding ultrasonics which I believe you are referring to.
However, for me I found some dacs that sound better with high res and some others that sound the same at every sample rate. Quite audible garbage at low sample rates could be heard in the sound of dacs that sounded 'much' better at higher sample rates. Also, the effect is the same if I use speakers that cannot reproduce ultrasonics. Therefore, I said I think ultrasonics have virtually no effect on why people find hi res to sound much better. IOW, I left open the possibility that ultrasonics might also have some small effect, but probably not so large as the very obvious effects I found.
I am also aware of the theoretical problems with DSD, as well a problems with PCM, such as element matching, and some of the attempts to remedy those things. Also aware of problems with substrate coupled noise in single-chip dacs.
Despite all those things, listening tests show in actual practice some dacs running at DSD256 sound sound better than if running at DSD64, better than if at any PCM sample rate, etc. Doesn't mean any of those dacs, including the best sounding one, is without remaining problems. It only a statement of experimental observation using real dacs and using trained/expert human listeners.
Mark
I am aware of controversy surrounding ultrasonics which I believe you are referring to.
However, for me I found some dacs that sound better with high res and some others that sound the same at every sample rate. Quite audible garbage at low sample rates could be heard in the sound of dacs that sounded 'much' better at higher sample rates. Also, the effect is the same if I use speakers that cannot reproduce ultrasonics. Therefore, I said I think ultrasonics have virtually no effect on why people find hi res to sound much better. IOW, I left open the possibility that ultrasonics might also have some small effect, but probably not so large as the very obvious effects I found.
I am also aware of the theoretical problems with DSD, as well a problems with PCM, such as element matching, and some of the attempts to remedy those things. Also aware of problems with substrate coupled noise in single-chip dacs.
Despite all those things, listening tests show in actual practice some dacs running at DSD256 sound sound better than if running at DSD64, better than if at any PCM sample rate, etc. Doesn't mean any of those dacs, including the best sounding one, is without remaining problems. It only a statement of experimental observation using real dacs and using trained/expert human listeners.
Mark
Last edited:
What it seems like you really mean is that if you observe something visually then it is objective. But if you use your ears then its subjective?
You must have some bad CDs then. Mine are all 100% accurate to that which was stored.
My experience from when I worked in electroacoustics in auditoria is that it varies a lot. But I didn't say random. YMMV -- which is exactly the point.
If we are talking about Audio CDs then producing the CDs involves A/D conversion. Thus what is written on the CDs has already been made lossy. Thus Audio CDs are lossy, whereas data CDs are usually not lossy.
By your reasoning if someone puts an MP3 on a CD then the audio is not lossy? Because if an MP3 on a CD is still lossy, the why isn't A/D conversion recorded on an Audio CD also lossy?
Dang, you step away from the kids for a second and the whole thing goes to s#!t!
I hesitate to wade into this mess, it crops up periodically here and on the Blowtorch threads preceeding it. We obviously listen to equipment with our ears, but debating the validity of certain perceptions in a forum is pointless. The only thing that would be of interest would be to find out actual electronic/code/whatever mechanisms to explain a sonic difference, not debate the existence of differences themselves. This inevitably degenerates into some form of: "I'm sorry your hearing/equipment/whatever is so bad you can't hear what I do" and therefore is a waste of time. I have run into this kind of ego thrashing repeatedly over the last 40 years of being professionally involved in audio and it never ends well; one can never prove another either hears or doesn't hear something. Period.
Have a great Sunday, all!
Howie
I hesitate to wade into this mess, it crops up periodically here and on the Blowtorch threads preceeding it. We obviously listen to equipment with our ears, but debating the validity of certain perceptions in a forum is pointless. The only thing that would be of interest would be to find out actual electronic/code/whatever mechanisms to explain a sonic difference, not debate the existence of differences themselves. This inevitably degenerates into some form of: "I'm sorry your hearing/equipment/whatever is so bad you can't hear what I do" and therefore is a waste of time. I have run into this kind of ego thrashing repeatedly over the last 40 years of being professionally involved in audio and it never ends well; one can never prove another either hears or doesn't hear something. Period.
Have a great Sunday, all!
Howie
Not in a forum, anyway. Controlled studies don't always convince everyone, either. What people are most likely to accept as proof is when they hear something for themselves, especially if they are able to reliably pass a blind test a few times.
Dang Ed, I was afraid someone with perfect hearing would chime in, game over...lolol 
Bohrok, I fully agree with you, but what kind of constructive reply can be made to someone who claims to hear something? "I'm glad for you!", "Sorry your hearing is bad," or some other comment... I wish we could keep the discussions to technical causes of perception, not just claims of perception. This forum is (or used to be) a technical and engineering forum.
WRT the equipment being bashed, I am afraid Mark and his friend are in the minority, and the Vega was a runner-up component of the year in 2014, not to mention I have found it faultless compared to other DACs, but that is absolutely his right to express his opinion and no further discussion need follow....unless a technical issue derived from testing could be established. Perhaps my USB delivery to the DAC is better than his...or worse but I like the stuttering sound of marginal buffering? Who knows...there are a million ways sound can be affected when comparing one situation to another remotely, and like Mark points out, we would all have to be in the same room to even be talking about the same thing...absolutely true.
I'm sorry if my lack of eloquence does not accurately convey what I am trying to get at here
...it is why I really would rather not even engage in this type of discussion and stick to circuitry and physical phenomenon that can be tested and parameters conveyed.
Have a great weekend, all!
Howie
Bohrok, I fully agree with you, but what kind of constructive reply can be made to someone who claims to hear something? "I'm glad for you!", "Sorry your hearing is bad," or some other comment... I wish we could keep the discussions to technical causes of perception, not just claims of perception. This forum is (or used to be) a technical and engineering forum.
WRT the equipment being bashed, I am afraid Mark and his friend are in the minority, and the Vega was a runner-up component of the year in 2014, not to mention I have found it faultless compared to other DACs, but that is absolutely his right to express his opinion and no further discussion need follow....unless a technical issue derived from testing could be established. Perhaps my USB delivery to the DAC is better than his...or worse but I like the stuttering sound of marginal buffering? Who knows...there are a million ways sound can be affected when comparing one situation to another remotely, and like Mark points out, we would all have to be in the same room to even be talking about the same thing...absolutely true.
I'm sorry if my lack of eloquence does not accurately convey what I am trying to get at here
...it is why I really would rather not even engage in this type of discussion and stick to circuitry and physical phenomenon that can be tested and parameters conveyed.Have a great weekend, all!
Howie