Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 8

post #106 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by jax View Post


 


I don't think we agree totally - I think it is absolutely, entirely irrelevant whether they realize what you suggest or not.  What is important is if they enjoy what they ultimately choose.  Why they choose it and enjoy it may not be something you nor I could grasp, but we can certainly empathize with the concept of "enjoyment". 

 

...

 

It comes down to the age old subjective / objective argument for which there will never be any winner or right answer. 


x2

post #107 of 3125
Thread Starter 

Jax, I do not subscribe to the God and faith analogy. I also think that people should know the facts, or at least all of the 'facts' that are available, so that they can make a properly considered judgment.

post #108 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

Jax, I do not subscribe to the God and faith analogy. I also think that people should know the facts, or at least all of the 'facts' that are available, so that they can make a properly considered judgment.


Facts are just a point of departure as far as emotions and perceptions are concerned in my book.  We perceive the world through individual and entirely unique "eyes" - facts tell me nothing about how someone else might perceive them...I can only guess and I could easily be entirely wrong.   Chocolate ice cream may be a fact, but how anyone might perceive it is not for me to say.  I can only tell you how I experience it.  Again, objective vs subjective - we are not on the same page and never will be, which is why I point out that we most certainly do not totally agree with each other. 

post #109 of 3125

It was exactly an example of an experiment not designed well.

 

Look at the front fascia area surrounding tweeter of a decent professional studio monitor. It is sculpted to provide just right sound wave dispersion pattern and eliminate standing waves on the front surface of the monitor, and of course it is devoid of cloth.

 

Look at the cabinet and mid-range cone of the monitor. They are rigid. The cabinet is very heavy (e.g. Genelec cabinets are usually made of metal) and the cone is very light (e.g. A7's cones are made of carbon fiber composite). There is a lot of thinking, design, and advanced material science going into those monitors with transducers directly coupled to air.

 

Now if one places a cloth in front of such a monitor, the high-frequency directly coupled transducer magic is gone (try it yourself) and in addition I suspect there are going to be intermodulation distortions caused by the flexible heavy cloth, not dissimilar to the ones that the rigid light design of the monitor's mid-range cone was eliminating.

 

Yes, the cloth may be acoustically transparent in the context of a typical consumer-grade loudspeakers testing - those speakers have huge FRC peaks and valleys and rampant intermodulation distortions anyway. Yet put a flat-curve low-distortion studio monitor behind it, playing a decent SACD material, and I believe some people with sharp hearing are bound to perceive the veiling and distorting effect of the curtain.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post




I do not know. I will try and find info on what it is made of. I would assume it is the same stuff speaker grills are covered with.  Apparently What Hifi also use some sort of screen for their blind tests. In any case, so long all of the speakers are played through it, they are on a level playing field.


Edited by Krav - 7/12/10 at 10:51pm
post #110 of 3125

I think the analogy is relevant here. Two or three years ago as I recall there was a big news and subsequent fiery discussions related to the discovering of "God's gene". I'm close to the end of lunch break now and don't have time to search for references, yet the executive summary is that it turns out some people are genetically predisposed to have powerful religious experiences, and some are not, depending on the presence or absence of specific genes. For those who are predisposed, the "Unity with God" is a strong and undeniable subjective truth.

 

Audio perceptivity is shaped by genetics as well as we know.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

Jax, I do not subscribe to the God and faith analogy. I also think that people should know the facts, or at least all of the 'facts' that are available, so that they can make a properly considered judgment.

post #111 of 3125
Thread Starter 

Krav and jax, to get back on topic, I provided all of the evidence that I can find on the internet relating to blind testing and what that has to say about audiophile myths. I have read many a thread on audiophile forums where religion, perception, semantics and philosophical meanderings have been the the counter to science. Can you now bring some actual science to this thread? For example, links to an actual study with regards to sound quality and perception.

post #112 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

Krav and jax, to get back on topic, I provided all of the evidence that I can find on the internet relating to blind testing and what that has to say about audiophile myths. I have read many a thread on audiophile forums where religion, perception, semantics and philosophical meanderings have been the the counter to science. Can you now bring some actual science to this thread? For example, links to an actual study with regards to sound quality and perception.


The point I'm trying to make is that using "science" as a benchmark for human perception of the universe is simply a less than reliable resource.  Actually, science has proven to be a very transient resource throughout our brief history in establishing so called "facts".  Science once told us that the world was flat and that blood-letting cured diseases.  As advanced as science has become it remains transient. Today's discoveries are proved to be dated and antiquated faster than ever, or quite slowly in some cases.  As far as explaining things like the human mind, human perceptions, and our place in this vast universe, I don't believe it really begins to tell the whole story - thus the obvious connection to faith as some attempt to explain it.  Science has it's own theories.  Neither can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt.  The thing that always comes to mind in this tired discussion is that we are not machines and do not experience the world as such....so what, I ask you, is the point?  Meanderings aside, I'll just add a good book to suggest as being very much on point: "This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession"

post #113 of 3125
Thread Starter 

Blind testing audio is a scientific means of measuring peoples perception of sound quality. Can people perceive a difference between cables etc? The answer is usually no.

 

post #114 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by jax View Post




The point I'm trying to make is that using "science" as a benchmark for human perception of the universe is simply a less than reliable resource. 

 

Then what is a reliable resource?

 

Actually, science has proven to be a very transient resource throughout our brief history in establishing so called "facts".

 

That's what makes it so much better than adamant beliefs. But, you can't just throw facts down the drain because you think they're wrong. You have to prove they are. Which you aren't doing.

 

Science once told us that the world was flat and that blood-letting cured diseases.

 

Really? These were proven using the scientific method and extensive research, testing, and observation? Do you have proof of this claim?

 

I have no source, but I recall reading that the whole flat world thing is nothing but a joke of sorts. Even ancient people knew the world was a sphere. It was just some silly group of cultists or whatever in the middle ages who pushed the flat world thing.

 

As advanced as science has become it remains transient.

 

I'd rather rely on current facts that may be later proven false than on pure faith.

 

Today's discoveries are proved to be dated and antiquated faster than ever, or quite slowly in some cases.

 

That's those discoveries. Prog's research isn't antiquated yet. Antiquate Prog's research on audiophile myths, yourself or with links to research like he asked. Until you do, you have no weighty point.

 

As far as explaining things like the human mind, human perceptions, and our place in this vast universe, I don't believe it really begins to tell the whole story - thus the obvious connection to faith as some attempt to explain it.

 

So, science has part of the story. And faith makes the whole story up. It's like an unfinished research paper vs. fiction. You expect us to believe the fiction first?

 

Science has it's own theories.  Neither can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

But at least science tries, instead of just whining about how it's impossible and we should just follow our hearts.

 

The thing that always comes to mind in this tired discussion is that we are not machines and do not experience the world as such....

 

Of course we're machines. Biological ones. We just go by what the chemical and electrical reactions in our mind tell us. That's why hallucinogens do what they do, and that's why modern medicine works (for the most part). Unless you want to convince us that we have souls etc., but that's a discussion for a very different sub-forum.

 

so what, I ask you, is the point?

 

There is no point/spoon.

 

Meanderings aside, I'll just add a good book to suggest as being very much on point: "This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession"

 

I'm not buying a book just to humor your argument. Cite it, quote it, something.


Responses in bold, if you haven't guessed.


Edited by Head Injury - 7/8/10 at 9:15am
post #115 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

Blind testing audio is a scientific means of measuring peoples perception of sound quality. Can people perceive a difference between cables etc? The answer is usually no.

 


My own personal experiences, over 30 years in this hobby, is that I can tell (some) differences and consistently identify them in blind tests conducted in systems, as my own and close friends, where I'm intimately familiar with them.  That is not to say that all changes yield such differences that are audible to me.  That is not to say the differences I hear will be the same differences you hear (or do not hear).   Whether relevant or not (and I posit that it is entirely not relevant to what makes EVERYONE happy - though some may get there kicks out of such things), you are probably quite correct.  The fact is, by far and away, the majority of people don't even care about such things, and would not take the time to even try it.  You can find studies that isolate groups of people who cannot tell the difference in red wines at various pricepoints (and diverse reviewed successes among "experts").  I suppose you could let such reviews determine that you should always buy the cheapest wine available.  Well, that's fine for some folks, but if you do enjoy the taste of red wine, and do have specific preferences, I doubt you'd be happy buying whatever is cheapest.  To each, their own.

post #116 of 3125


 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post


 


The point I'm trying to make is that using "science" as a benchmark for human perception of the universe is simply a less than reliable resource. 

 

Then what is a reliable resource?

 

The point I'm trying to make is that it simply doesn't matter whatever you believe a reliable resource might be - you cannot reliably predict how everyone will respond to a given stimulus.  Put the human in the picture and resources be damned. 

 

Actually, science has proven to be a very transient resource throughout our brief history in establishing so called "facts".

 

That's what makes it so much better than adamant beliefs. But, you can't just throw facts down the drain because you think they're wrong. You have to prove they are. Which you aren't doing.

 

How does that make either one better.  Neither can prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt.  "Proof" still does not take human perception into account. Again, there is the "fact" of chocolate ice cream - how do you "prove" anything about the way that tastes to an individual at specific moment in time?

 

Science once told us that the world was flat and that blood-letting cured diseases.

 

Really? These were proven using the scientific method and extensive research, testing, and observation? Do you have proof of this claim?

 

I have no source, but I recall reading that the whole flat world thing is nothing but a joke of sorts. Even ancient people knew the world was a sphere. It was just some silly group of cultists or whatever in the middle ages who pushed the flat world thing.

 

Since we seem to be relying upon internet resources, here you go.

 

Here's blood letting.  There have been all matter of things understood by the most learned of people as fact that were later dis-proven or revised in the name of science. 

 

As advanced as science has become it remains transient.

 

I'd rather rely on current facts that may be later proven false than on pure faith.

 

Have at it.  No one is stopping you.

 

Today's discoveries are proved to be dated and antiquated faster than ever, or quite slowly in some cases.

 

That's those discoveries. Prog's research isn't antiquated yet. Antiquate Prog's research on audiophile myths, yourself or with links to research like he asked. Until you do, you have no weighty point.

 

As I indicated in a recent response, my own experiences have been different and that's all I have to go on.  Whether my point is "weighty" or not, matters not one wit to me - I'm just sharing my own personal experience and take on this stuff.

 

As far as explaining things like the human mind, human perceptions, and our place in this vast universe, I don't believe it really begins to tell the whole story - thus the obvious connection to faith as some attempt to explain it.

 

So, science has part of the story. And faith makes the whole story up. It's like an unfinished research paper vs. fiction. You expect us to believe the fiction first?

 

I don't expect you to believe anything at all.  I expect you'll choose what you want to believe.  I don't want to dictate what you believe - just sharing my own experience in a discussion.  I don't think either can explain why we're here and the vastness of the universe.  I think what we don't know is so far in excess of what what we do as a grain of sand on huge beach.

 

Science has it's own theories.  Neither can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

But at least science tries, instead of just whining about how it's impossible and we should just follow our hearts.

 

In part, our unquenchable thirst for knowledge and proof and control over nature will eventually, probably sooner than later, end our existence on this planet and destroy most of its natural resources.  It's happening at an alarming rate, as we all can plainly see. 

 

The thing that always comes to mind in this tired discussion is that we are not machines and do not experience the world as such....

 

Of course we're machines. Biological ones. We just go by what the chemical and electrical reactions in our mind tell us. That's why hallucinogens do what they do, and that's why modern medicine works (for the most part). Unless you want to convince us that we have souls etc., but that's a discussion for a very different sub-forum.

 

We disagree entirely here.  I will not try to convince you of anything at all. 

 

EDIT: I guess we don't disagree entirely - I simply don't believe that whether or not we might be a "biological machine", that we can reliably predict the response of every or any given individual to a given stimulus.  As far as souls go, indeed, not appropriate here...in that we are in complete agreement.

 

so what, I ask you, is the point?

 

There is no point/spoon.

 

Meanderings aside, I'll just add a good book to suggest as being very much on point: "This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession"

 

I'm not buying a book just to humor your argument. Cite it, quote it, something.

 

That's too bad.  It's a very good book.  I didn't mean it as "part of my argument", but as suggested reading that people interested in this topic might enjoy.  It neither supports not disputes my positions here, as I recall - if anything it may support your own point of humans being a biological machine I suppose, though whether or not we have a full grasp of how it works is not made clear.  I'm sorry you won't be reading it.  What can I say?


 


Responses in bold, if you haven't guessed.


Responses in red.


Edited by jax - 7/8/10 at 9:54am
post #117 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by jax View Post

The point I'm trying to make is that using "science" as a benchmark for human perception of the universe is simply a less than reliable resource. 

 

Then what is a reliable resource?

 

The point I'm trying to make is that it simply doesn't matter whatever you believe a reliable resource might be - you cannot reliably predict how everyone will respond to a given stimulus.  Put the human in the picture and resources be damned. 

 

You don't need to predict how everyone will respond. You only need to predict what causes their responses. That's psychology. Psychology deals directly with human motivation and perception. Yet if you want to get anywhere with psychological research, you need resources and facts. You can't just go in and claim something is true without research just because the human mind is tricky.

 

Actually, science has proven to be a very transient resource throughout our brief history in establishing so called "facts".

 

That's what makes it so much better than adamant beliefs. But, you can't just throw facts down the drain because you think they're wrong. You have to prove they are. Which you aren't doing.

 

How does that make either one better.  Neither can prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt.  "Proof" still does not take human perception into account. Again, there is the "fact" of chocolate ice cream - how do you "prove" anything about the way that tastes to an individual at specific moment in time?

 

Easy. Measure the reactions of the brain. We can do that now, thanks to science, though it's incomplete. We perceive things a certain way for concrete physical reasons. Even psychological reasons like placebo are caused by physical reactions in the brain. So they can still be measured and calculated.

 

But again, it doesn't matter. Your perceptions are your own. Thus you can't share them. Thus they mean nothing to anyone else, research included. Research only cares about what causes your perceptions. Green could be "red" to you, but if you still call it green then we're on the same page.

 

Science once told us that the world was flat and that blood-letting cured diseases.

 

Really? These were proven using the scientific method and extensive research, testing, and observation? Do you have proof of this claim?

 

I have no source, but I recall reading that the whole flat world thing is nothing but a joke of sorts. Even ancient people knew the world was a sphere. It was just some silly group of cultists or whatever in the middle ages who pushed the flat world thing.

 

Since we seem to be relying upon internet resources, here you go.

 

Here's blood letting.  There have been all matter of things understood by the most learned of people as fact that were later dis-proven or revised in the name of science. 

 

No, silly! I'm talking about research into the effects of bloodletting and flat worlds. I know people believed it at some point. But people believe in God and I don't. Nor has he been proven by any research. Just because people thought it did something didn't mean it was scientifically valid at any point in time.

 

You used these points to prove that the scientific method was flawed. Show me how these theories were proven with the scientific method. I see bloodletting more akin to cables. Doctors back then who weren't the most scientific and didn't make use of the Method developed since believed in leeches. Then with the Method leeches were debunked. They never had real scientific merit. Cables never had real scientific merit but big-time "audiophiles" believe in them. Now science is finally being applied to them and calling them a sham.

 

As advanced as science has become it remains transient.

 

I'd rather rely on current facts that may be later proven false than on pure faith.

 

Have at it.  No one is stopping you.

 

Thank God. Wouldn't want to be oppressed.

 

Today's discoveries are proved to be dated and antiquated faster than ever, or quite slowly in some cases.

 

That's those discoveries. Prog's research isn't antiquated yet. Antiquate Prog's research on audiophile myths, yourself or with links to research like he asked. Until you do, you have no weighty point.

 

As I indicated in a recent response, my own experiences have been different and that's all I have to go on.  Whether my point is "weighty" or not, matters not one wit to me - I'm just sharing my own personal experience and take on this stuff.

 

And that's exactly what we don't want! If you want to get through with us, or even begin to argue against what Prog is doing here, you have to match him with your own research and proof. Personal experience is not proof. No one else can experience it. And it's a proven fact that the mind plays tricks on people.

 

As far as explaining things like the human mind, human perceptions, and our place in this vast universe, I don't believe it really begins to tell the whole story - thus the obvious connection to faith as some attempt to explain it.

 

So, science has part of the story. And faith makes the whole story up. It's like an unfinished research paper vs. fiction. You expect us to believe the fiction first?

 

I don't expect you to believe anything at all.  I expect you'll choose what you want to believe.  I don't want to dictate what you believe - just sharing my own experience in a discussion.  I don't think either can explain why we're here and the vastness of the universe.  I think what we don't know is so far in excess of what what we do as a grain of sand on huge beach.

 

This isn't a discussion of experiences. This is science. Your posts really don't belong here if all you're posting are beliefs. They're quite welcome in other discussions in other sub-forums. If the Cables forum is allowed a No DBT tag, I think the Science forum deserves a No Subjectivism banner.

 

Science has it's own theories.  Neither can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

But at least science tries, instead of just whining about how it's impossible and we should just follow our hearts.

 

In part, our unquenchable thirst for knowledge and proof and control over nature will eventually, probably sooner than later, end our existence on this planet and destroy most of its natural resources.  It's happening at an alarming rate, as we all can plainly see. 

 

Who cares? We're just one of billions of planets. Rather quest for knowledge than stagnate in comfortable ignorance. But that's just me. And besides, science has been turning towards environmentalism for some time now. If we stopped science in the 1800s we'd have probably destroyed the planet already, and if we didn't we would soon.

 

The thing that always comes to mind in this tired discussion is that we are not machines and do not experience the world as such....

 

Of course we're machines. Biological ones. We just go by what the chemical and electrical reactions in our mind tell us. That's why hallucinogens do what they do, and that's why modern medicine works (for the most part). Unless you want to convince us that we have souls etc., but that's a discussion for a very different sub-forum.

 

We disagree entirely here.  I will not try to convince you of anything at all.

 

Good. I don't think my fragile programming could take it.

 

so what, I ask you, is the point?

 

There is no point/spoon.

 

Meanderings aside, I'll just add a good book to suggest as being very much on point: "This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession"

 

I'm not buying a book just to humor your argument. Cite it, quote it, something.

 

That's too bad.  It's a very good book.  I didn't mean it as "part of my argument", but as suggested reading that people interested in this topic might enjoy.  It neither supports not disputes my positions here, as I recall - if anything it may support your own point of humans being a biological machine I suppose, though whether or not we have a full grasp of how it works is not made clear.  I'm sorry you won't be reading it.  What can I say?


I'll check the library, though I'm not hopeful.


Responses in Plum.

post #118 of 3125

It appears you missed my point. So here it goes again: it's been recently discovered exactly what genes control predispositions and enduring differences of opinions on many of he subjects that people typically can't agree on. The strength and inevitability of such predispositions has never been understood to that extent up until about 5 years ago.

 

Human brains are just as, or even more diverse as their bodies. Imagine how silly would be a "blind test" proving that no human can lift over 400 pounds. Round up some random college students, and ask them to lift that unmarked weight, observe that not a single one can, and claim that it is humanly imposible to do it. Would that be a science?

 

Concerning myself, I have significantly above average ability to separate events in temporal domain. Over and over again, the supposedly "good" audio and video systems that most people find smooth and seamless are perceived as disjoint and distorting by me. So I'm attracted to systems that most people find unreasonably perfectionistic and expensive. I think this is mostly genetic as my kids exhibits similar traits.

 

On the other hand, my color perception is mediocre at best and I can never figure out what all this fuss about color accuracy and color clarity is about. I often rely on my wife's taste to dress in a color-unoffensive way. So, should you round me up to serve in some "limits of human color perception" test? 

 

Believe me, I know a thing or two about statistics and design of experiments, as I've been doing it for living for quite a while. In a lot of the audio perception blind tests I read about the systematic error control is questionable at best. And none I'm aware of had enough participants to capture that elusive fraction of a percent of the population with "super-human" hearing acuity.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

Krav and jax, to get back on topic, I provided all of the evidence that I can find on the internet relating to blind testing and what that has to say about audiophile myths. I have read many a thread on audiophile forums where religion, perception, semantics and philosophical meanderings have been the the counter to science. Can you now bring some actual science to this thread? For example, links to an actual study with regards to sound quality and perception.

post #119 of 3125

HeadInjury - I was trying to offer another perspective, not really to argue or persuade.  You seem to have a strong vested interest in protecting some tightly held beliefs.  I was never trying to change them, just suggesting that there are other ways to see things.  Your responses to me occur to me as to border on hostile and flippant.  I will take your suggestion and bow out of the conversation since my perspective does not fit with the criteria of the forum, or so it would seem.  Certainly I believe that "science" tells only a tiny part of the story, and there is far more that we don't know, and don't understand, than we do. 

 

Krav - yes, I got it the first time, and appreciate the addendum.  Very interesting points.  The domain of perceptions that directly trigger such profound emotions as music is capable of is far too diverse and complex to attach numbers and graphs to, and really, what exactly is the point?  I guess I just don't share in the burning passion to "prove" everything, and to ferret out the "truth" in order to be satisfied.  In that respect, Headinjury is quite right - my input does not belong in this forum.

 

post #120 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by jax View Post

Krav - yes, I got it the first time, and appreciate the addendum.  Very interesting points.  The domain of perceptions that directly trigger such profound emotions as music is capable of is far too diverse and complex to attach numbers and graphs to, and really, what exactly is the point?  I guess I just don't share in the burning passion to "prove" everything, and to ferret out the "truth" in order to be satisfied.  In that respect, Headinjury is quite right - my input does not belong in this forum.

 


In a forum, everyone should be allowed to have a perspective, it is part of freedom of expression after all. Unless it goes against something so innately against human nature. I'm actually a subscriber to what Krav has just mentioned, but I will not voice my opinion any further more than his.

 

I'm sure technical experiments give people some sense of certainty and security as to what they should expect. But yet in the audio world, there are many variables that still exist. Take a frequency graph on a particular headphone model. The make and design of the headphone affects the sound that comes out of the drivers as well to some degree. And then there is the biggest variable, human sonic perceptions and genetically, it is hard to know to what extent sound sounds to everyone. Again, I would refer to Krav's disposition. But whatever the case, agree to disagree. It's a forum that is available for discourse, but not if it gets personal.

 

Music to me is meant to be enjoyed, but everyone has different reasons for going into this hobby. I suppose that this was posted in the sound science aspect of the forum, but all I want to say to jax is that you should not stop yourself from giving input and I'll leave it as that. I think it's important that you share your views and if people accept it, that's another thing altogether.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths