My Ultra tests

[onlyoneme]

Math has well defined concepts of proof.

I differentiate science from math, because science deals in imperfect observations.

Math is a science but I guess you mean a kind of science called "natural science" here.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Which ones? Which "measurable, audible aspects of the device’s output"? Can you provide a list of tests and measurements which are necessary to be made to work as a proof of the device transparency?

Range of frequency response, deviations from frequency response, distortion, noise, dynamic range.

As I’ve said before, the limits of these are well-documented. I ain’t doing your donkey work for you.

 

[Jls]

Which ones? Which "measurable, audible aspects of the device’s output"? Can you provide a list of tests and measurements which are necessary to be made to work as a proof of the device transparency?

Ultimately it’s noise, because every defect will show up in a noise measurement.

 

[steadyshot]

That’s a broad statement.

Can you be specific?

We don’t listen to electronics, we listen to the signal that comes out at the end of a chain.

For example, we know the limit of human audibility to dynamic range is c.115dB. If you have a DAC with 115dB or better, then there you have it.

It really doesn’t matter the method the electronic signal has taken to get there. That’s like saying that potatoes boiled in water in a saucepan heated by an electric hub will taste different to those where the pan is heated by gas.

It’s the end result that’s important.

I am referring to this thread which is the backbone of the views you hold

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Math is a science but I guess you mean a kind of science called "natural science" here.

We can hear what we can hear. We can’t hear what we can’t hear.

We can (and have) prove what can and can’t be heard using properly conducted controlled testing.

If you believe you can hear a difference not explained by the current science, you should feel free to point to properly controlled testing which demonstrates that this is possible.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

I am referring to this thread which is the backbone of the views you hold

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/

Yes, that’s a good thread.

Using the criteria mentioned there, the Pro Plus is transparent. My working assumption is that the Ultra will be too, but I’ve been the first to say we need to wait for it to be properly tested before we know for sure.

 

[onlyoneme]

So that’s how it’s used, not the device itself.

No, it shows a behavior of the device under some conditions.

Most measurements are usually taken with multi tone as well as a single sine wave.

Simple multitones will not show the behavior which I was talking about.

But the bottom line is this. If something does sound different, that’ll show up in a properly controlled test.

Yes, it will. But if you don't test it, then you are not aware of the issue which makes an audible difference.

Once again, you’re confusing “if it can be heard it can be measured” with “if a difference can be measured it can be heard”, which is a clear non sequitur.

No at all. What exactly made you thinking so?

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Simple multitones will not show the behavior which I was talking about.

Then you must specify (a) why, (b) the nature of a test which will show the behaviour you’re talking about, and (c) controlled testing to show the test you suggest will be audible to people where the other test won’t.

You’re making the claim, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate it.

If I come to these forums claiming my music sounds better if I wear yellow socks, I wouldn’t expect anyone to believe me, unless I provided evidence.

 

[onlyoneme]

Range of frequency response, deviations from frequency response, distortion, noise, dynamic range.

I was expecting more detailed list. Are all these tests limited to FFT analysis?

 

[onlyoneme]

Then you must specify (a) why, (b) the nature of a test which will show the behaviour you’re talking about, and (c) controlled testing to show the test you suggest will be audible to people where the other test won’t.

You’re making the claim, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate it.

If I come to these forums claiming my music sounds better if I wear yellow socks, I wouldn’t expect anyone to believe me, unless I provided evidence.

I provided test conditions which reveal a potentially audible difference between devices which behave transparently if this test is not a part of "transparency" tests.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

I was expecting more detailed list. Are all these tests limited to FFT analysis?

You don’t need a more detailed list. That’s all we can hear. No one has ever discovered an aspect to human hearing which can be shown to be audible in controlled tests.

Any other questions, you’re just going to have to do your own research.

One of the worst things that can happen in any discussion like this is where someone comes with bad faith. Constantly trying to send the discussion down a rabbit hole.

No matter what you say, we’ll-accepted and understood principles, let’s say that human hearing is generally good from 20Hz to 20 kHz, and someone wants to muddy the waters, they ask you to jump through hoops proving it.

You know what the limits are. Don’t try to detail the debate by asking every last statement if accepted fact to be re-re-re-proven and referenced all over again.

Doing so is just a sign that you’re wanting to divert attention.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

I provided test conditions which reveal a potentially audible difference between devices which behave transparently if this test is not a part of "transparency" tests.

Specifically?

Your tests are extensive, and more than welcome, but the way you pres them is often impenetrable.

Please specify what the difference is, what the different results are, and why you believe the difference may be audible.

Many thanks.

 

[onlyoneme]

Specifically?

Your tests are extensive, and more than welcome, but the way you pres them is often impenetrable.

Please specify what the difference is, what the different results are, and why you believe the difference may be audible.

Many thanks.

Here you are. Two WiiMs, fixed resolution set on the digital output, one apply the volume limit after the resampling, second one does it before.
And a test file of sine 0 dBFS signal but with +3 dBFS intersample peaks.

FFT analysis of the first device will look like this:



and for the second device:



Look yourself for the frequency range I used to show distortions, and for the sinad calculated in the mentioned range. What do you think about the audibility?

 

[canard]

transparent...
it's safe for 95% of the general population and 95% of music listened to...even compressed is enough.. so.... ;-)
a little physio balance..and zou... ;-)

 

[onlyoneme]

You don’t need a more detailed list. That’s all we can hear. No one has ever discovered an aspect to human hearing which can be shown to be audible in controlled tests.

I would need a more detailed list because details are the most important thing here. I would guess that you never performed a test similar to measurement tests for the audio equipment, but of course I do not have a proof of that.

Any other questions, you’re just going to have to do your own research.

Why me? I do not try to convince anyone that few undetailed tests are enough to resolve if a device is "transparent".

You know what the limits are. Don’t try to detail the debate by asking every last statement if accepted fact to be re-re-re-proven and referenced all over again.

All I expect is a prove that a limited set of tests made for the DUT is enough to call it "transparent", which implies, I guess, that it won't let hear a difference when compared to another "transparent" device under the same listening conditions. Or that measurable differences between these devices in any test under the same test conditions, will be below the audibility threshold.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Here you are. Two WiiMs, fixed resolution set on the digital output, one apply the volume limit after the resampling, second one does it before.
And a test file of sine 0 dBFS signal but with +3 dBFS intersample peaks.

FFT analysis of the first device will look like this:

View attachment 9096

and for the second device:

View attachment 9097

Look yourself for the frequency range I used to show distortions, and for the sinad calculated in the mentioned range. What do you think about the audibility?

You’re not testing the product. You’re testing what happens when you set the volume limit on the device differently.

I could say my bottle of water doesn’t leak, you could grab it off me, unscrew the cap, and turn it upside down, and say that’s proof that the bottle leaks.

 

[onlyoneme]

You’re not testing the product. You’re testing what happens when you set the volume limit on the device differently.

Looks like you didn't understand. Both devices have set the same volume limit.
So I test the device behavior under some test conditions.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

1 - I would need a more detailed list because details are the most important thing here.

No you don’t. If I claim my car is faster than yours, you need to look at the speedometers. You don’t need a more detailed list.

2 I would guess that you never performed a test similar to measurement tests for the audio equipment, but of course I do not have a proof of that.

Oh dear. I’ve never carried out a test on any of the medicines I’ve ever taken or planes I’ve ever flown on. And neither have you.

That’s utterly irrelevant.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Looks like you didn't understand. Both devices have set the same volume limit.
So I test the device behavior under some test conditions.

So it’s the conditions you’re testing, not the device.

If I get a low-powered amp and try to get it to drive in efficient speakers, I’ll get distortion.

That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the amp.

You’re constantly trying to test things in situations for which they weren't designed, and/or won’t be used in, to produce results which you feel are relevant, just because they show any difference at all.

Once again, just because you can measure it, doesn’t mean you can hear it.

 

[onlyoneme]

No you don’t. If I claim my car is faster than yours, you need to look at the speedometers. You don’t need a more detailed list.

If two people do the tests based solely on your list, they would probably get different results just because they would interpret the test list differently. Details matter.

Oh dear. I’ve never carried out a test on any of the medicines I’ve ever taken or planes I’ve ever flown on. And neither have you.

That's why I do not talk about the validity of tests in medicine or airplanes industry.