Math is a science but I guess you mean a kind of science called "natural science" here.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.Math has well defined concepts of proof.
I differentiate science from math, because science deals in imperfect observations.
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.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?
I am referring to this thread which is the backbone of the views you holdThat’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.
Math is a science but I guess you mean a kind of science called "natural science" here.
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/
No, it shows a behavior of the device under some conditions.So that’s how it’s used, not the device itself.
Simple multitones will not show the behavior which I was talking about.Most measurements are usually taken with multi tone as well as a single sine wave.
Yes, it will. But if you don't test it, then you are not aware of the issue which makes an audible difference.But the bottom line is this. If something does sound different, that’ll show up in a properly controlled test.
No at all. What exactly made you thinking so?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.
Simple multitones will not show the behavior which I was talking about.
I was expecting more detailed list. Are all these tests limited to FFT analysis?Range of frequency response, deviations from frequency response, distortion, noise, dynamic range.
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.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 was expecting more detailed list. Are all these tests limited to FFT analysis?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Why me? I do not try to convince anyone that few undetailed tests are enough to resolve if a device is "transparent".Any other questions, you’re just going to have to do your own research.
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.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.
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?
Looks like you didn't understand. Both devices have set the same volume limit.You’re not testing the product. You’re testing what happens when you set the volume limit on the device differently.
1 - I would need a more detailed list because details are the most important thing here.
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.
Looks like you didn't understand. Both devices have set the same volume limit.
So I test the device behavior under some test conditions.
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.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.
That's why I do not talk about the validity of tests in medicine or airplanes industry.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.