Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?

Why does it matter if a laser shows that the surface of a loudspeaker enclosure moves? How much movement is needed to make an audible difference? I'll never understand why some people are so willing to measure the wrong things and come to a wrong conclusion, when it's so easy to measure the right things and get the right conclusion!

Thanks for pointing me to this thread. Yeah, "revisionist" is the right word. :->)

Here’s the thing: When someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them. It’s not up to me to prove that a 2 volt drop doesn’t have an audible effect. It’s up to the claimant to prove that it does. This is Logic 101. More important, trying to assess the affect of a power wire by measuring the AC power voltage is beside the point. The *only* thing that matters is what happens at the output of the connected equipment. Competent audio gear is immune to small changes in voltage, and routinely filters out the typically small amount of noise riding on top of the power voltage.

As always, I’m glad to be proven wrong, and I promise I’ll change my opinion immediately. But in all the years I’ve been at this, nobody has ever provided such proof. Which makes sense given that electricity at audio and power line frequencies is fully understood (by electrical engineers).

I just realized the topic of this thread is vibration isolation. I love this topic! Why? Because it's so easy to prove or disprove by measuring. But who has ever done that? Well, I did not long ago. Enjoy:

http://ethanwiner.com/speaker_isolation.htm

Edit: Okay, I do understand why people who sell solutions to non-existent problems are willing to promote magical thinking. But why do consumers fall for this stuff?

I've been a professional audio engineer and musician for more than 45 years, and deeply into acoustics for the past 20 years. So I have a good handle on what happens in rooms, how things sound and are measured, and - maybe most important - why people think they hear stuff that isn't real. Now, that might seem controversial or even insulting, but you probably know that there's an entire scientific field called "psychoacoustics" that deals with this sort of stuff.

So, as always, the burden of proof is on those who put forth a theory, and after more than ten years of asking for proof nobody has ever shown any. Not once, not ever. Ask yourself why that is.

LOL, so much hand wringing (Ethan's here, oh no! A definite turn for the worse) yet no proof that isolation does anything. Of course, as mentioned in my article, I'm not talking about turntables or earthquake level vibration. Just normal sound in the air from loudspeakers playing at normal levels up to and including loud "reference" level.

So again I ask, what proof do you have? More important, if you can't prove your case, doesn't it make sense to ask yourself *why* you can't prove it, and then possibly reconsider your opinion?

Where is your room? Near me in western Connecticut? I’m always willing to drive up to an hour each way, or even two.

But otherwise, no, it doesn’t make sense. Just because you can feel your floor give when you jump up and down is unrelated to whether loudspeaker isolation improves or even changes the sound. Did you read the article I linked? I explain all of this, and why, in detail. And as I said at the end of the article, I’m glad to see measurements from others proving that isolation does make a difference in their situation. But so far nobody has. And calling me ignorant (not you, others here) is hardly evidence. Nothing audible that happens in a room will evade measuring with the type of software I used for my tests. So yet again I ask for measurements. As Judge Kevin Ross says at the start of each TV show, "Prove your case!" :->)

No, the burden of proof is on those making the claim. Logic 101 teaches that you can't prove a negative.

So yet again we reach a stalemate where someone who believes in magic has time to make more than 14,000 posts (!), yet claims to be "too busy" to prove their beliefs. Or even learn how to measure this stuff. As Carl Sagan famously said, "I'd rather know than believe." Apparently some people would rather believe than know. Which is why these arguments continue. You can't argue with a belief system, and people will believe what they want in spite of all logic and evidence. Or in this case, lack of evidence.

Look, I'm sure you enjoy your system, and I bear you no ill will. I just hope you didn't waste too much money on "isolation" products because they don't affect the sound, even if you believe they did.

"Everyone understands and accepts that the placebo effect is real, but for some reason audiophiles think it never happens to them."

I'll leave you with this commentary on the current state audiophilia:

http://ethanwiner.com/hi-fi.htm

Okay, one more, I can't resist:

"We had an interesting incident near Humboldt State University. A new cell tower went up and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cell phone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health. Think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational. The ability of the human brain to convince itself of just about anything is not to be underestimated." --Brian Dunning

Jumping on the floor is not the same as loudspeaker cabinet vibration and expansion. One can shift the floor 1/4 inch while the other is measured in fractions of a millimeter. I’m sure you know that, and my article explains it in great detail, so now you’re arguing just to argue. My article clearly shows what sort of improvement one can get from bass traps versus isolation, so obviously isolation is no competition to actual acoustic treatment. Or maybe you don’t know how to read a waterfall plot? Tell me what parts of my article you don’t understand and I’ll be glad to explain. I think the real issue here is that some people who claim to be expert listeners (ie: audiophiles) don’t understand even the basics of how their own hearing works.

BTW, I sold my company earlier this year, and have no financial interest in whether people waste their money on isolation platforms, or who they buy acoustic products from. I’m doing new things now, better things, more fun things! Follow me on Facebook and you’ll see what I’m up to now.

But Geoff, you’re the plaintiff. You are the one denying what science knows about how sound propagates, and what my article has proven, so it’s up to you to prove my article is wrong. You know you can’t do that, so you try to convince yourself it’s up to me to prove my case. I already did! Read my article again. Look at the graphs. Boom, there it is: proof that loudspeaker isolation is nonsense. There was more change from lowering the speaker three inches than from any of the isolation devices!

All you have to do to prove that isolation improves the sound is to measure your own isolation situation or whatever you have. Do you know how to do that? If you email me from my web site I’ll be glad to help you. Or start here:

http://realtraps.com/art_measuring.htm

It amazes me that people will argue and complain for literally years, when all they have to do is spend half an hour measuring to prove their case. Just think what a hero you would be if you could prove that isolation devices improve the sound! Heck, I’ll give you $100 if you can prove that. I really will.

Atmasphere, I never said (or meant, anyway) that power cords don’t make a difference. Obviously using 22 gauge wire to feed a 1,000 watt amp is inadequate. What I’m always careful to say is that replacing one competent power cord with another is foolish. I’m certain you know you misquoted me. Why do you do this? Are you in the business of selling audio equipment?

My objection is to companies that charge hundreds or even thousands of dollars for one "upgraded" power cord based on lies that the sound quality will improve. It will not improve. If you’re really an engineer (but who can tell since you remain anonymous) you’d know this. Yet you argue anyway. Why do you do this? Do you really not understand what affects fidelity and how it’s measured?

As for my own setup, I have excellent speakers that are self-powered (bi-amp’d), so the power amps in my modest Pioneer receiver are irrelevant. Though those amps have perfectly fine specs.

And as for Geoff’s magical belief in a building moving in six directions when music plays, all I can say is LOL times 100. Actually, if that were true then the listener’s ears would be moving too, thus negating that ridiculous logic.

As for "Are all those people deluded?" the answer is a resounding yes! This famous quote comes to mind:

"If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing." --Anatole France (1844-1924)

Atmasphere, I got it, you must be Ralph Karsten:

http://www.atma-sphere.com/AboutUs#Company

Why don’t you just use your name? I always use my name. Even when I owned my acoustics company I used my real name. Even before the Internet, when the main gathering place for audio talk was the Music & MIDI forum in CompuServe, I used my real name.

Ralph, I find it hysterical that you sell low power tube amplifiers that don’t even quote a distortion spec, but you’re glad to criticize my choice of equipment. For the record, I still use my Pioneer receiver, and it cost all of $150 at Costco. It offers six reasonably hefty power amps with max distortion of 0.1 percent. This is not great, but it’s surely better than any tube amplifier! At full output of 110 watts with all channels driven the distortion is less than 1 percent. Since I use powered monitors and a killer powered SVS subwoofer, the Pioneer’s amp distortion is irrelevant anyway. I just use the line outputs.

I find it amazing that you agree with me about overpriced power wires, and about Geoff Kait, and probably 99 percent of everything else about audio. But to avoid alienating people you want to sell stuff to, you’d rather attack the one time I forgot to qualify power cords as needing to be competent. And to think some folks here called me a shill!

I’m new to this forum, but I can see based on the replies that many here prefer to remain willfully ignorant. That’s fine! If you peeps find the truth about audio fidelity offensive, you’re welcome to ignore facts and buy overpriced crap that makes zero difference in sound quality or is even worse than "normal" gear. It might seem that one-off boutique audio gear would be better than mass-produced amplifiers and DACs etc. In fact, it’s the opposite. If Sony makes a mistake it can cost them millions of dollars. So these large companies hire the very best engineers and designers they can. And for the most part their products reflect that. I’ll take a $400 Crown power amp over some BS $15,000 amp featured in Stereophile every day of the week!

Dave, you are welcome to ignore me! I don't care what you think either, but I don't get bent out of shape about it and feel the need to say so IN ALL CAPS. :->)

agear wrote: "Now, back to the matter of how modulation of vibration effects all things electrical....anyone?"

LOL, I asked that a few times too. Crickets. These people have NO CLUE how audio works, or how vibration might affect sound, or how to even assess or measure the effects of vibration. Yet they go on forever about audio unicorns while ignoring the very real elephant in the room (acoustics), and to a lesser extent the distortion in their LP records and loudspeakers.

$100 says none of these believers will ever post a measurement or other proof showing the affects of vibration.

Ralph, I've been in this thread for only the last few pages, so you should have seen my qualifier about vibration that I'm specifically not talking about turntables. Yes, obviously vibration when cutting a record, or playing it back later, will affect the sound. I think I also mentioned that tubes can be microphonic, so there too vibration can possibly affect the audio. I'm sure you know that I'm talking about wires and solid state gear, and all the other silly "vibration" products believers waste their money on.

As for LP distortion, just because cutter heads are powered by large amps has nothing to do with the amount of distortion throughout the entire signal chain. Competent digital converters (ie: CD quality at 16/44) have typical distortion less than 0.01 percent at all audible frequencies right up to the point of hard clipping. I'll be glad to see your real world distortion numbers for sine waves on an LP played back at typical levels. Use the best test tone LP you can find, with the finest turntable and cartridge you can get your hands on, and have Michael Fremer align it if you'd like. :->) I imagine that best case it's at least 100 times worse than the distortion of CDs but, as always, I'm willing to change my opinion as soon as you or someone else shows actual evidence. So whatcha got?

Geoff posted a link that shows how to measure vibration, but it doesn't show how to measure the affects of vibration on audio as I requested. So yet again Geoff has failed.

Looking back I'm not sure it was in this discussion that I excluded turntables from audio gear that doesn't benefit from isolation. I usually mention that. Of course, it's incredibly obvious that record players will skip if you stomp around. So it's disingenuous to pick on that one situation when it's clear that the real BS is selling "isolation products" for use under wires and CD players etc.

Geoff Kait said, "every environment is different and vibration sources and amplitudes and frequencies vary all over the place. Thus, any attempt to explapolate the measured performance of an isolation device's effect on the audio signal and say this is what you will experience in your system is naive."

LOL, dude, I'll be glad to see your one lone example where isolation makes a difference. Just one. But as I already said, it's clear you don't have a clue how to even measure this stuff. Do you not see how foolish you look? Even the other believers in this thread are laughing at you.

Ralph, I can’t tell if you’re being disingenuous or you really believe what you write. For now I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and address your points. You’re in quotes below, and I’m not:

"When you say ’0.01’ are you referring to THD? When one looks at digital specs, one is lucky to find the distortion spec listed at all; if it is its usually in terms of db and at that also as a composite figure representing THD and noise together (which seems a reasonable way to express the value). However its the inharmonic distortions that are the larger amount of distortion that has shown up in a lot of digital gear over time, but that number is not included in the spec, in fact I don’t see it on websites anywhere."

I was quoting typical specs. When I assess gear I often use the FFT display in Sound Forge because it shows all artifacts. I’ve done this dozens of times, and FFT screens are included in my two AES videos and in my Audio Expert book. If there was some mysterious type of "inharmonic" distortion, other than IMD or jitter or aliasing which are all known and understood, I’d have seen it by now in an FFT. There is no such thing. If you believe otherwise, please post an FFT showing that distortion, and explain how you created it.

The GIF linked below displays a series of FFT screen caps showing the THD and IMD and spectral noise of an original Wave file, a copy played out and back in through a 16 year old Delta 66 sound card, and again out and in through a $25 SoundBlaster X-Fi sound card:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/misc-content/sound_card_distortion_corrected.gif

I generated the source file in Sound Forge, so I imagine it’s as clean as a 16-bit digital source can be. The record level meters said -1 for both sound cards for all frequencies:

20 Hz
1 KHz
10 KHz
19 + 20 KHz

Clearly the Delta 66 is extremely clean even when recorded at -1 dB. This proves beyond all doubt that a halfway decent sound card - even a very old one - does not generate "inharmonic distortions" at a level that’s even audible let alone intrusive. And before you claim that people can hear artifacts that are 110 dB down, this section of my AES Audio myths video plays a pair of recordings made simultaneously through the same $25 SoundBlaster sound card and a very high-end Apogee converter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ&t=41m15s

Even with the higher level of artifacts in the SB card, the sound quality is still very similar to an expensive converter. And before you accuse YouTube compressed audio of masking the differences, here are the original Wave files:

http://ethanwiner.com/aes/sound_cards1.wav
http://ethanwiner.com/aes/sound_cards2.wav

"Since the collection of data from a CD is an analog process, its reasonable to assume that reducing vibration in the transport will improve data recovery. Its not uncommon to see damping applied to high end CD transports."

Wow, talk about circular logic! First, the makers of "high end" CD players do whatever they think is needed to convince people to pay handsomely for their stuff. That they "isolate" their transports means nothing. They probably claim to use some BS over-designed power supply too. More important, if you believe normal amounts of vibration can affect audio quality, why don’t you test it for yourself? I’ve done that, which is why I know isolation for CD players is BS. It’s not a difficult test! If you design audio gear, surely you have a sine wave generator, a CD burner, and a way to record the player’s output as you shake it around while playing your test tone CD. Or just watch the output on a ’scope as you shake it. Or just listen. Sheesh!

They cannot answer the question, They never will be able to answer the question. All they can do is insult us, and call us names, and accuse of having an agenda. But the one thing that would put us in our place, and shut us up for good, is forever beyond their grasp. :->)

LOLZ. I’m surprised it took you so long to delete my post. Though it was totally deserved. But you didn’t ban me from the forum? What’s wrong with you peeps? Seriously, what’s wrong with you? :->)

I looked at this article:

http://www.industrial-electronics.com/DAQ/optical_discs_digital_data_and_vibrational_jitter_effects....

It absolutely does not show that isolation doohickeys under CD players have even the smallest value. Yes, blasting 105 dB from a loudspeaker directly at a CD player might create a measurable disturbance, but not audible given the jitter artifacts are at -130 dB. That's more than 30 dB below the "hiss" noise floor of a CD, which is itself inaudible. Moreover, putting your player on a platform won't stop the acoustic vibration from the sound in the air reaching the player! I made that point clearly in my Loudspeaker Isolation article which none of you apparently bothered to read. So here it is again:

http://ethanwiner.com/speaker_isolation.htm

Ralph, I absolutely do not think I know everything. I do think that everything that affects audio fidelity is known, and so there’s no mystery, but I know very well that I don’t know everything. A list of just what I know that I don’t know would be pretty long. Then there's the stuff I don't even know that I don't know. That said, if you think people like cockrum and kait have anything to offer that will increase my knowledge of audio, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Ralph, do you know about nulling? It reveals everything that differs between two signals, including stuff you might not even think to look for. Nulling has been used since at least the 1940s (early HP distortion analyzers), so if there were some unknown aspect of audio beyond distortion and hum and aliasing etc, it would have been revealed years ago by nulling. That’s the gist of the project I’m working on that I described in my first of the two deleted posts. :->)

As for innovation, that’s more to do with better ways to solve old problems such as loudspeaker design, less battery consumption, making HD TV screens cheaper to manufacture etc. There’s not much "new" in audio science itself, though lossy compression (MP3, AAC) is fairly recent.

I’ll email you about my project because I imagine you’ll find it interesting. And maybe you’ll be around for a phone call over the holiday "dead" week between Xmas and New Years? I'm sure we do in fact agree on 90+ percent of this stuff!

It's clear that Geoff Kait doesn't understand what nulling is or how it works. I'll give you a clue: it doesn't "measure" anything. Here's a more complete explanation, not that you're interested in learning anything but maybe others are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ&t=53m39s

^^^ Yes, exactly. And nulling can be used in many other interesting and creative ways. The device I'm currently developing can measure distortion down to extremely low levels, and it can even use music as a test signal. It can also compare two wires to see how they differ. So you could compare the $3 RCA wire that comes free with every CD player versus a $2,000 "interconnect" and see how similar they are. If they null to below -100 dB then you know both wires must sound identical no matter what the vendors claim. Pretty neat, eh?!

shadorne, these people are immune to proof. And to logic. At this point I'm hanging around this thread only for its humor value, to see how stupid the comments can get. The winner so far is the guy with the 70 pound battery who's certain he hears an improvement when it sits on an isolation platform. It amazes me that people who like to believe they have superior hearing have so little understanding about how their own hearing works, or how unreliable sighted comparisons more than a few seconds apart really are. Give any of these people a proper blind test and they'd fail like little children taking a college physics exam.

LOL, yes agear. I would love to see any actual accomplishments from any of these people arguing with us! At least we know that Ralph is a knowledgeable electronics engineer. But what the heck do the others know? What are their credentials? What musical instruments do they play at a professional level? What music have they composed? What recordings have they made? What circuits have they designed? What technical papers have they had printed in mainstream publications? Why should we listen to their opinion about anything? These are all absolutely serious questions. Geoff, you can go first please. :->)

agear, if you like the sound of analog tape and vinyl, then you like the sound of distortion. That’s fine! But it’s not high fidelity. Recording and mixing engineers add the amount of distortion they think is "musical" when they make the recordings. Everything doesn’t get distortion added! But some stuff does. If you like the sound of even more distortion, maybe you should take up recording and mixing as a hobby so you can dial in what you want in controlled amounts?

There is nothing jarring about digital audio. In controlled tests people are unable to tell when a 44/16 "bottleneck" is inserted into an analog playback chain. This is well known and well documented. The key is "controlled tests" which apparently many people here are unfamiliar with. :->)

Your web site please?

Well, he’s wrong. And you (and he) are the ones who don’t get it. And Argument From Authority never impresses me. But you don’t have to believe me. Honest, I don’t care who you believe. But if you're serious about understanding audio, you’d do well to cancel your subscription to the audiophile magazines and join the AES instead.

^^^ I’m sorry but that’s just wrong. The very definition of high fidelity is a flat response and low distortion. Yes, many fabulous recordings have been made on old school analog equipment. But that equipment has lower fidelity than even consumer-grade modern digital converters. So again, the perception that analog recordings are more "lifelike" than digital is a psychoacoustics effect caused by the addition of distortion. Honest, this stuff has been tested repeatedly and known for a very long time! I’m sorry if you’re not aware of the years of research, and the history of this!

By cleeds' logic, if a little bit of salt improves a hamburger, then an entire shaker full must be better still. I hope you can see who's throwing around the logical fallacies. :->)

Ralph, yes, of course I understand that audiophiles use terms like "warm" and "rich" to describe the thickness that distortion adds to music. Unless the distortion is so severe that it’s gross and buzzy sounding, I agree that it mainly changes the timbre. And of course the nature of the distortion and its spectrum matters. But what that argument misses is whenever you have THD you also have IMD. And IMD is "musical" in only a few instances, such as a 1-5 power chord where the sum and difference frequencies align with notes in the musical key. So whether the distortion comes from vinyl or analog tape, or tubes and transformers (not your stuff apparently), it can only make the music less clear. That some people like this coloration is beside the point. I like that sound sometimes too, and use it in my own recordings! But it's an effect, not higher fidelity as some people believe.

BTW folks (not you Ralph), I totally accept this is all my bad. I'm the atheist who ran into the church yelling, "There is no god!" :->)

Ralph, the only reason my post was deleted was because I told you know who to you know what himself. It had nothing to do with your post.

Digital systems do have aliasing, and that's like IMD except one of the source frequencies is the sample rate. So you can get aliasing with only a single pure tone. I guess you could call is inharmonic distortion but I'd rather call it what it is: aliasing. In all modern (competent) converters, all such distortions are too soft to hear anyway, even when listening carefully. But it can be measured, proving once again that test gear beats ears every time. Not for establishing preference! But for reliably and repeatably assessing fidelity.

Ralph, aliasing should be included within a typical "THD plus noise" spec, and I see no reason to call it out separately. Harmonic, inharmonic, IMO it’s okay for all artifacts to be lumped together. If the sum of them all is below 80-90 dB, none of it will ever be heard anyway. With a typical converter the sum of all artifacts is well below 100 or even 110 dB.

Tom, thanks for emailing me your web site. So your patents are in audio circuit design? Vinyl record technology? Or for cello end pins?

I’d love to hear the audio clips of your end pins versus carbon fiber. Looking at a waveform tells nothing useful. And why did you choose carbon fiber for comparison? My end pin is typical, regular steel, and it works fine with sufficient mass and rigidity. Unfortunately there’s no way to perform a controlled test. Even Yo-yo Ma can’t play the same passage exactly the same twice in a row. But being able to hear what was played, and how it was played, is needed to assess how your end pin is different. For all anyone can tell, those recorded waveforms were from completely different notes.

That said, why are there no prices on your web site? I hate when vendors force you to ask them for prices. When I see that I assume the seller is hoping to rope me in and get me to like him with chit chat, then he’ll hit me with an outrageous price. Or worse, that the seller wants to size me up to determine how much money I have and how much I’d be willing to pay. So when I see sites like that I just leave. I bet many people feel the same way.

Finally, I’m certain there’s a way to properly compare your 70 pound battery on the floor versus hoisted up on a platform. Have you ever done that?

You may or may not hear very soft artifacts, depending on their makeup and what else is playing at the same time. But you can measure them, and you can ask people to identify them in a blind test. So again, this is not unknowable or even difficult to sort out. Yes, it is just barely possible to hear certain combinations of tones when one is 80 dB below the other, but not at 90 dB as far as I know. So if we measure artifacts (including aliasing), and they’re at least 90 dB down, then nobody will ever hear them. Again, with most digital gear such junk is 110+ dB down. But I said 80-90 dB down because it requires a very special contrived test to hear -80. Heck, even -40 can be difficult in many cases due to masking. Have you ever done tests like this? I have, many times. I wish more people would! Here’s one that plays a very nasty harsh noise under gentle classical music, and then under a synthesizer based pop tune:

http://ethanwiner.com/audibility.html

All the other stuff you said about why people believe [whatever] about digital audio could be resolved in a single 5-minute blind test. (Likewise for isolation platforms.) These tests have been done. Many times. There is no legitimate dispute. There’s only willful ignorance by the Geoff Kaits and Dave Cockrums of the world.

BTW Ralph, you don’t have to keep saying stuff like "You don’t seem to understand." I’m certain there’s much here that you don’t understand, but I don’t feel the need to insult you by using such language.

agear, I’m not willing to read 11 pages of Stereophile blather. Can you quote the one or two key paragraphs here?

Below is one test that proved people are unable to identify a 44/16 "CD quality" bottleneck inserted into a "high resolution" playback chain. They tested 60 people having an interest in audio and music over a period of one year in 554 separate trials. So it was a serious study indeed with little room for error. This is a for-pay article, but the summary tells the story, and I have the article and can answer any questions about it:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

Here’s another, this time with an analog playback chain, from 1984 when even expensive digital convertors weren’t as good as the today’s budget stuff:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

Also, Ralph, I’ll be glad to entertain any test you care to describe that will prove you can hear what you claim. Please, let’s do this and settle it for once and for all. You owe it to your fans here to truly prove your case.

No Ralph, my test is exactly right on the money. I'm sorry you can't see that. If you were here I'd play the various clips for you blind, and I am absolutely certain you would not be able to identify which clips are "clean" and which have the buried noise. Since you're far away, maybe someone reading this discussion who lives near me is brave enough to visit and let me test them blind. But I doubt that will happen either, because I've been offering such visits for many years. Even when they live only a few towns away they refuse, making up endless BS excuses. So this nonsense that an obvious A/B comparison is somehow invalid continues year after year.

Hey wait, I have an idea! Tell me if you agree before I spend the hour or so this will take: I'll prepare clips of the same two examples in my Audibility article, but they'll be longer and I won't tell you there the nasty noise starts and stops. I'll put them on my site and post the links, then you'll play the clips and tell me where you think the noise is present. Then I'll tell you if you're correct or not. If you fear I'd lie about the locations, I'll be glad to email the answers in advance to a disinterested third party. Deal?

LOL, the anger and hostility here is outstanding. But not to worry, I won't be here for too much longer.

Yes, thanks Ralph, Merry X’s and Happy Holidays to all of you. Even the haters. I never get angry about this stuff. Really. I mostly just enjoy the challenge of explaining things to those who are clearly reluctant to learn. So this is my last comment for now:

As always, a believer (you) when challenged to describe a test he’s willing to take, finds a reason to avoid being tested at all. Ralph, the only analog source I have is a cassette deck, and I have an acoustic guitar. So you tell me exactly how to add gated hash noise while I capture my playing to tape in a way that challenges you to identify the noise, and I’ll send it to you. Or any other very specific and practical scenario you can describe. If you’re unable to describe any practical test I can give you (or others here) that lets you prove you can hear what you claim, I’ll be very disappointed in you (though not surprised).

But really, your claim is disingenuous on its face. All my Artifact Audibility test attempts to show is at what level below music a nasty sounding artifact can be heard. It has nothing to do with digital always adding disturbing artifacts, or whatever it is you believe. If that were even true, those artifacts would show up when recording and playing back a pure sine wave, or some other known source. So already your claim is easily proven false using basic audio test equipment. I should have posted this link earlier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

Therefore, your criticism of my test is not based on logic, but rather on a denial of basic audio principles. You can’t hear stuff when it’s 80 dB down! And in most cases you can’t even hear it when it’s 40 dB down. If you can’t hear that nasty noise when it’s 40-60 dB below the music, then you can’t hear any of the other stuff you claim people hear that makes digital sound unappealing. I’m sure you realize this. Either that, or you’re engaging in magical thinking. So please let’s resolve this so you can prove your point. If I’m wrong I’ll gladly admit it. Heck, I need to know if I’m wrong! I doubt I am, but I’d like to know for sure.

Ralph, this is very simple, and you have danced around it repeatedly:

If the "digital" artifacts you refer to are loud enough to be audible, then how come they don't show up in a standard FFT measurement? Or in a standard THD test that nulls the test frequency and leaves everything else. You already agreed that stuff 40-80 dB down is too soft to hear when it starts and stops in my Artifact Audibility test, so by extension it's too soft to influence "tonality" either. Aliasing, and all the other bugaboos you talk about, are 100+ dB down. And so they are inaudible. This is very simple audio basics, and clearly the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. Since you still haven't described a test you're willing to take that will let you prove your beliefs, it's clear that you're unable to do so.

Here's direct question I hope you'll answer: Since you are unable to prove your beliefs, I can only assume you haven't proven them to yourself either. So doesn't it make sense for you to do some experiments, so you will know that your beliefs are valid? I'll be glad to hear how you would test yourself!

Ralph, I read your posts several times. You didn't describe a test you're willing to take. Rather, you wasted several paragraph explaining why it's impossible to devise such a test: Your cassette deck needs new rollers, a special platform must be constructed, and - most incredible of all - you can't demonstrate digital aliasing on a digital system. :->) What a waste of both your time and mine this has been.

Your belief that distortion is different from "artifacts" and so can be heard at infinitesimally small levels is preposterous. I challenge you to prove it. Hint: you can't because it's not true. And your other belief, that distortion "brightness" is different from frequency response brightness, is equally preposterous. If you change the spectrum, how and why it changed is irrelevant. If you add 10 percent 3rd harmonic distortion to a 1 KHz triangle wave, that's exactly the same as boosting an EQ by about 1 dB at 3 KHz.

Again this is such basic stuff that I now have my answer: You do know that what you're claiming is nonsense, but you do it anyway to sell stuff. So I'm pretty well done here, though I still look forward to your proof that distortion is always audible even when it's 80+ dB below the music.

Ralph said: " You can have a fair amount of THD and still have relatively low IMD figures."

I doubt it, though I'll be glad to be proven wrong!