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 103

post #1531 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublea71 View Post


hahaha you guys crack me up. but seriously, since we are so susceptible to placebo, does anybody feel any envy towards those who do experience some sort of psycho-acoustic effect when switching cables, etc? sure, their minds are playing tricks on them, but doesn't it sound more....fun? i do have hazy recollections of such effects when i was a long-haired Jerry-loving youth and psilocybins were in vogue...
 

 

Not knowing is sometimes more fun. Agreed. Until things are working alright. Knowing whats real and whats not has its own merits, though, especially when you have to pay for all that.

 

But not everyone is alike.


Edited by proton007 - 10/18/12 at 10:08pm
post #1532 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublea71 View Post

does anybody feel any envy towards those who do experience some sort of psycho-acoustic effect when switching cables, etc?

I've got a kick ass stereo that's objectively great. Why should I envy self delusion?
post #1533 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parall3l View Post

When it comes to placebo, I find .flac to be a very good source of it for me. Even though I know I failed a DBT, I still use it because I "feel" an improvement in SQ when I'm using it. Using .flac, unlike silver cables, doesn't cost me any money

That depends on how much music you have. Using AAC 256 VBR my whole iTunes library fits on a single 2 TB hard drive. With flac, I'd need several drives and I'd have to split stuff across multiple drives.
post #1534 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parall3l View Post


I don't envy those who pay for placebo. When it comes to placebo, I find .flac to be a very good source of it for me. Even though I know I failed a DBT, I still use it because I "feel" an improvement in SQ when I'm using it. Using .flac, unlike silver cables, doesn't cost me any money.

:shrugs:

 

Yep. FLAC all the way. No compromise. Unless I am really short of storage. Which is rare.

post #1535 of 3264

If "psycho-acoustic effects" is playing in my head then why there are times that I "do" hear the differences and there are times that I "don't"?

like for eg. There was one time I was testing the differences between 2 "normal" optical and usb, I tried really hard but I didn't hear any differences between the two.

 

But there is one thing that I know for sure is that my amp&dac sound exactly how they should sound now with the right cables.

post #1536 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublea71 View Post


hahaha you guys crack me up. but seriously, since we are so susceptible to placebo, does anybody feel any envy towards those who do experience some sort of psycho-acoustic effect when switching cables, etc? sure, their minds are playing tricks on them, but doesn't it sound more....fun? i do have hazy recollections of such effects when i was a long-haired Jerry-loving youth and psilocybins were in vogue...

The psilocybins are still gonna have a much better effect on sound quality.tongue_smile.gif

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Meoow View Post

If "psycho-acoustic effects" is playing in my head then why there are times that I "do" hear the differences and there are times that I "don't"?

like for eg. There was one time I was testing the differences between 2 "normal" optical and usb, I tried really hard but I didn't hear any differences between the two.

 

But there is one thing that I know for sure is that my amp&dac sound exactly how they should sound now with the right cables.

 

 

Because the high-end cables cost more, so in your mind they have to sound better.

 

Try having someone else switch the cables for you. Tell them to not even switch them some of the time. 

 

If they can do that over 20 times with you guessing correctly each time which cable was being used, you'll know that the difference isn't just psychological.

post #1537 of 3264

I'll give one example since it was specifically scoffed at by a very uncivil poster. We converted some files from ..I had written a long explanation here of the process, files and how the comparisons were done independently but you know, I deleted it. It would just escalate some of the poor form.

 

I didn't make these claims because I want things to be different. I assume many things identical before hearing something wasn't quite. Whether it's significant enough to worry about for most folks on most systems, with most recordings, I can't say but it's important to me, regardless of how sure some of you are that it can't be different.

 

This is not something I can prove or even argue without just sitting next to someone for a listen. Something that I am always up for even if it doesn't work out, We can always just listen to some nice tunes. I'm not some newbi. I've corrected flaws in gear. One manufacturer called me crazy only to apologize a week later and made the change. This sort of thing has happened with listening as the discovery method and a bit of electrical knowledge to find it. It's why I get so put off by claims that folks shouldn't trust their ears. Yes, there is placebo and snake oil, lots of it actually but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Ignorance is a lack of experience with something. I have 35 years of it on an almost daily basis. Unless you have more, you probably shouldn't call me ignorant. Perhaps not even then. 

 

I won't get further in because this is always a circular discussion even when parties aren't trying to belittle the process as some have here. This post will be responded to with disbelief, credibility challenges and claims of insult to turn an argument. It's why I said I can't prove anything here and wont try. I just don't believe in the absolutes of measurement and find most comparisons have flaws on both side of the issue. I like handing somebody 3 of what should be the same files with labels like a-b-c and let them rank in any fashion they want to compare without any outside influence. They can listen to what meets their needs. It's not a 3rd party puposely trying to confuse them. You'd be surprised at how repeatable it is. It becomes a more human way of comparison and still without any predisposition. They are also not as influenced by performance pressure when on their own.

 

Chewy. I know Mike Moffit. He really knows how to voice something. I see you own some of his stuff. If you're in Chicago some time, perhaps we can do some listening.

 

As long as you all enjoy your own stuff, it's all good by me.bigsmile_face.gif

post #1538 of 3264
Quote:

Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

 

It's why I get so put off by claims that folks shouldn't trust their ears.

What? You still don't seem to have checked out the first page which contains LISTENING TESTS. These require participants to trust their ears (only).


Edited by xnor - 10/19/12 at 8:33am
post #1539 of 3264

You're not invited.tongue_smile.gif

post #1540 of 3264

I think many things affect our hearing, probably more than we're aware of.
 

post #1541 of 3264
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

I'll give one example since it was specifically scoffed at by a very uncivil poster. We converted some files from ..I had written a long explanation here of the process, files and how the comparisons were done independently but you know, I deleted it. It would just escalate some of the poor form.

Ha! Nice!

Are you the fella who bumped down the high bitrate songs using the wrong dither, then blamed the artifacting on redbook sound in general?
post #1542 of 3264

You are unbelievable and I wasn't referring to dither or you in that quote. If you mean when I said that I can notice the difference in various VST applicable dither algorithms used for the same correct function, than you've asked in a very antagonistic and assumptive way. I always use correct dither when doing bit rate sample conversions or level changes and am careful about which. Check the market, there's plenty of custom dithers out there which I'm sure you feel are all a waste of time. They are there because many feel that they help.

 

 That came up in a different scenario where I asked you if you used dither in a conversion and you correctly replied in the affirmative The rest was just an observation on dither in general that you've now spun out of control. You know, I must have used the wrong dither to hear a difference or their couldn't be one.rolleyes.gif

 

Please stop with the silly attacks. I'm happy to leave this inquisition if not addressed and I'll be sure to stay away in the future. I'm sure you won't miss me.


Edited by goodvibes - 10/19/12 at 12:52pm
post #1543 of 3264

O_o, he just asked a question, didn't he?

 

 

On dither: it's basically just noise. I guess you're talking about noise shaping algorithms. But unless you can hear the unshaped noise, shaping the noise won't improve anything at all. In fact, some noise shaping algorithms push the noise so aggressively into high frequency bands that it becomes audible (I successfully ABX'd that). That is pretty shocking, yet some "engineers" boast with these advanced (and often expensive) algorithms.

post #1544 of 3264

He did not just as a question. He asked if I was still doing blow? LOL

Dither is a different thing than noise shaping. It for better low level linearity and bit tracking. Diferent discussion not for this thread but interesting. There have been all analog hearing studies where people could better distinguish quiet sounds with a bit of low level noise in the background.


Edited by goodvibes - 10/19/12 at 1:19pm
post #1545 of 3264

Well I leave it to bigshot, but I define a single sentence ending with a question mark as question.

 

I think the dither/noise shaping discussion does fit perfectly into this thread. After all it's a claim that dither X or noise shaping algorithm Y is better, sounds better etc.

There's no question that dither reduces distortion of low level signals but I've never heard of "bit tracking".

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