[BS5711]

the tests i do are enough for me, thanks

Tho since i bought the interface to do comparisons (on youtube) it might be easy to A/B with the recorded files and everyone else is free todo so too later on

probably cant convince most objectivists anyway since even if they hear a difference they will find a reason to invalidate any records... but if anyone is interested, i made a thread over there a while ago https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wou...his-youtube-listening-and-blind-tests.972120/

I understand your point, you hear it so it can’t be wrong. On the face of it that is quite rational.

However it doesn’t remove the fact that human hearing isn’t the infallible listening machine that audiophiles believe it is.

Since you are interested enough in audio to mess with the stuff that you do it would not be much of a stretch to do a little research about the human auditory system and the affects of external and internal stimuli on our perception of sound.

Music can sound better on a nice day when you are in a good mood and relaxed.

I know music can sound better after a couple of beers but much worse after a couple of beers to many.

Music can sound worse if you are uptight or anxious or even if you listen intently and dissect it too far.

If given appropriate misdirection music can sound different from the exact same equipment only minutes apart if you think you are listening to different gear but actually aren’t.

The list goes on, you must have experienced some of this sort of thing.

If you are interested enough in audio to do the other messing around you talk about doesn’t it interest you to understand what you perceive as sound and why you perceive different sound when no actual difference exists like in some of my examples above, some of which I assume you have experienced yourself.

You can literally hear different sound just because of what you eyes convey to your brain. Take two minutes and look up “McGurk Effect” on You Tube. You can literally see/hear your auditory system being completely fooled by stimulus from your eyes. If your perception of sound is so easily fooled by a You Tube video doesn’t that make you wonder what else you are hearing that maybe isn’t real at all ?

If you are not interested that is fine, you are certainly not alone, but until you have a basic understanding of the unreliability of our auditory system how can you confidently say what actually makes a difference to sound and sound quality that you perceive ?

So far it seems you are interested in what makes the air move not what our ears and brain create from that moving air and what other stimulus might affect the perception of sound that our brain creates.

 

[castleofargh]

@Ghoostknight
Again with the "science says" for something science did not say. You don't give any clear information, no magnitude, you don't define any conditions, or mention what has actually been measured for "science" or anybody else to reach any sort of conclusion about audibility. You're just whining about a vague concept where science has to play the bad guy of your made up story. Also, your ADC stuff has nothing to do with this topic or any point made in it.
You also write BS about "objectivists", where at best, you usually mean gregorio or bigshot. What is your plan here? Antagonize everybody in the section and look like some anti science zealot? If that's your plan, you're doing a great job.
I'm used to a more logical you, so I put the last days on a momentary bad mood where you post out of spite, but I beg you to calm the F down.




And for @bigshot and @BS5711,(and we'll pretend I never do it), it would be nice if on your side you tried to go easy on audiophiles often being the idiots of your stories. The extremist audiophiles who do behave like you describe, tend to be an overrepresented tiny minority of the audio community.

 

[BS5711]

And for @bigshot and @BS5711,(and we'll pretend I never do it), it would be nice if on your side you tried to go easy on audiophiles often being the idiots of your stories. The extremist audiophiles who do behave like you describe, tend to be an overrepresented tiny minority of the audio community.

Roger that

 

[Ghoostknight]

@BS5711
i know the McGurk effect, it also works on me

i know it sounds like "i stand above nature" but imo you can learn to listen "objectively", i had much more trouble as i started out
i also dont go buy something and "expect" it to perform better, i just take a listen... specially because higher price definitely not means better performing unless you might look for 100euro vs 2k comparisons...
and i dont go into "testing sessions" with another mood than relaxed/normal

these are great generalization that maybe apply to the majority of people that are specially _not aware of these effects_ but i dont think they apply to everbody to the same degree, tho i dont say im "immune" to them and i dont work like a machine that is everytime right as im testing... just because someone isnt 100% of the time right doesnt invalidate any changes they still might have heared, specially because of the things you stated, thats also part of why i think DBT is flawed

@castleofargh

You also write BS about "objectivists", where at best, you usually mean gregorio or bigshot.

when i state "objectivists", i mean all people that push the message of certain studys and that the results of these studys dont need to be questioned anymore "because they are facts"

I'm used to a more logical you, so I put the last days on a momentary bad mood where you post out of spite, but I beg you to calm the F down.

Its hard to do a normal conservation around here since that was my initial intent but one is excluded to state his own opinion or it goes downhill from there... Why people cant accept a different opinion? i know.... science can explain everything "so i must be wrong"...
i mean sure helping out if someone doesnt know better is one thing but thats definitely not what some people are doing here, i guess they are just so used to trolls that everybody that states anything other than science has to get silenced down around here...

 

[BS5711]

Of course it works on you because you are human like the rest of us and that proves that you are not above your perception of sound being fooled.

How can a well controlled blind test be flawed to the extent that you prefer to believe what I assume are normal sited listening sessions ? A proper double blind test would only be flawed because the result would not agree with your preconception.

Despite that you state to the contrary reading between the lines it seems like you do essentially believe that you are above the limitations of our hearing despite that you are aware if these limitations. In essence you believe what you hear and like many audio enthusiasts won’t genuinely entertain the idea that differences you ‘hear’ might not be real.

This is flogging a dead horse so I will give in there.

 

[bigshot]

It’s hard to keep in mind that audiophools don’t make up a big proportion of the population when I keep getting gold plated examples glomming onto me on a regular basis in this forum.

But I have acknowledged just recently that extreme foolishness exists in science arguments too. A lot of people seem to forget the purpose of chatting about home audio. It isn’t to impress or convince others of our opinions, it’s to share priorities and useful information that can be used to improve the sound of our systems. That kind of thing seems to be in short supply sometimes.

However I do think that the majority of audiophiles don’t make enough of an effort to understand the basics of how digital audio works. Most of them lean too heavily on manufacturers’ advertorial as their primary source of information, and subscribe to the theory of “better numbers and bigger price tags must mean better sound”. I don’t think many of them at all have spent any time researching the thresholds of perception. I think many objectivists are guilty of that too.

When someone says they trust their all too human impressions more than controlled tests and studies, that’s when I give up and dismiss them. You can’t explain how things work with facts when the person refuses to acknowledge facts. That’s when I start quoting Mark Twain.

 

[gregorio]

Measurements have definitely their place, as studies and research do or we wouldnt be where we are today and to some degree it helps consumers too, but i dont know, maybe i just have a strange opinion/view of things because what i hear and what i get told or read objective wise just doesnt fit together well

And that’s the problem, for you it doesn’t fit together well because you don’t understand it. And because you don’t understand it you’ve chosen to simply make-up nonsense which some how does “fit together well” for you but does not fit at all with the actual proven facts. As you don’t seem to know the actual facts, that’s not a problem for you personally but obviously it’s a massive problem in an actual science discussion forum! For example, “yes”, measurements do “have definitely their place” and one of those places is called digital audio, that’s what digital audio is, just a sequence of measurements. So, what is it that you are listening to when you’re playing a digital recording?

im still in believe that there is a huge discrapency between what people actually hear and what is said to be "audible" by science

To an extent that is true. What is “audible” according to science isn’t necessarily “what people actually hear” because science doest’t only consider one audiophile in his sitting room, it attempts to consider all humans in general. So for example, science describes the human hearing range as roughly 20Hz to 20kHz but what most “people actually hear” will be a lot less than that, because most people are not children with near perfect hearing. If you’re an adult, 20Hz to 16kHz is probably all you will actually hear. 20Hz to 20kHz represents the threshold limit (under reasonable listening conditions) and the vast majority of people will not be able to reach that limit, just as the vast majority of people cannot run 100m in less than 10 secs. What’s bizarre about many audiophile claims is that magically they claim to exceed those limits without formal training, in their ordinary sittings rooms and often by a magnitude or more. Can they also run 100m in under 1 second just from practicing in their sitting room?

Its easy to say its all placebo, but honestly, there are probably more audiophiles than "hardcore objectivists", and i dont believe its all mass-delusion

Firstly, what reliable evidence do you have upon which to base that belief? Secondly, how do you account for the fact that as soon as those audiophiles are tested under controlled conditions their magical powers cease to exist? Thirdly, it’s easily demonstrated that audiophiles are subject to placebo. Lastly, what evidence do you have that there are more audiophiles than objectivists or more hardcore audiophiles than hardcore objectivists and even if that were the case, how is an “Argumentum ad Populam” a valid argument? Another classic fallacy. Can you post anything other than fallacies?

the tests i do are enough for me, thanks

Fine, then only apply them to yourself, do NOT falsely state them as facts (or applicable to anyone else) in a science discussion forum!

just because someone isnt 100% of the time right doesnt invalidate any changes they still might have heared, specially because of the things you stated, thats also part of why i think DBT is flawed

So, part of why you think DBT is flawed is that you have made-up a false fact that you’ve then identified as false. Brilliant, a perfect example of yet another strawman!

Its hard to do a normal conservation around here since that was my initial intent but one is excluded to state his own opinion or it goes downhill from there...

You’re joking? You are NOT trying to have a “normal discussion”, particularly in a science discussion forum, a “normal discussion” is not one based entirely on fallacies; circular reasoning, strawman and Argumentum ad Populam just to name 3 in this post alone. That’s pretty much the exact opposite of “a normal discussion”! How do you not know this, even after it’s been explained to you numerous times?

Why people cant accept a different opinion?

Again, you’re joking? This is the Sound Science discussion forum, therefore having a different opinion is fine and will be accepted by people provided either: That different opinion does not contradict the established science or if it does, then it’s accompanied by suitably reliable evidence. A different opinion, one which is just made-up BS that is contrary to the science and is not supported with robust evidence will NEVER be accepted here, otherwise this would not be the Sound Science discussion forum, it would just be another BS marketing forum. Again, how do you not know this, do you really not understand even the fundamental basics of what science is?

G

 

[bigshot]

All opinions are not created equal. Some are based on knowledge and understanding of how things work and are supported by facts, and some are pulled out of thin air and defended to the death with slippery logic. I think the reason people succumb to this has less to do with home audio than it does psychology.

 

[Ghoostknight]

How can a well controlled blind test be flawed to the extent that you prefer to believe what I assume are normal sited listening sessions ? A proper double blind test would only be flawed because the result would not agree with your preconception.

because things just dont add up to a logical conclusion here

when i listen to a particular device, this device, even compared to two others, will always sound the same, how is that if im imaging things?
Does the brain save a catalog of imaged sound signatures for each device? it just doesnt make sense

another thing is how can some audiophile describe the sound and another can confirm these changes? i guess this is also easly denied with bias

DBT is just another step to complicate things and the quesiton why objectivists dont hear differences with their DBT method still lingers in the room from a logical standpoint

Despite that you state to the contrary reading between the lines it seems like you do essentially believe that you are above the limitations of our hearing despite that you are aware if these limitations.

Well we cant deny that everyone is different, probably also in sound perception -specially- with "trained" hearing, either by just critical listening or actually producing music, its quite fascinating how musicans/engineers/professionals describe sound compared to most casual listeners, tho i guess this is also learning how to articulate sound

What i would really like to know if there are some studys that actually show some differences in the brain or how it operates in the "hearing processing area" with musicians vs "normal" people that dont have much todo with music
i remember reading that the brain "architecture" always is constantly changing, depending on what you expierence etc... and im pretty sure "hearing training" will have an effect long term on the brain

i mean there are so many so many things that are still unclear, i just dont believe science is at a point where we fully can explain everything, sure we can set "some average thresholds" but thats it

 

[bigshot]

He’s starting with a conclusion and rejecting any evidence that doesn’t support his conclusion. If he doesn’t personally understand something, then nobody can understand it. We can’t know anything because we don’t know everything. Subjective perception trumps objective reality.

 

[Ghoostknight]

Subjective perception trumps objective reality

well in my book its subjective reality trumps objective theory

 

[bigshot]

Solipsism

 

[Ghoostknight]

Solipsism

luckily im not alone with that opinion

 

[gregorio]

because things just dont add up to a logical conclusion here

That assertion obviously MUST be false because by definition it could not be scientific if it were not logical. Again, you don’t seem to know even the fundamental basics of what science is! The only potential question regarding this assertion is; why are you incapable of recognising the logical conclusion?

when i listen to a particular device, this device, even compared to two others, will always sound the same, how is that if im imaging things?
Does the brain save a catalog of imaged sound signatures for each device? it just doesnt make sense

And again, round and round in circles you go. Make-up some false facts and then claim that they’re false and/or don’t make sense. Duh, of course they’re false and don’t make sense, what do you expect false facts to be?

well in my book its subjective reality trumps objective theory

Exactly, that’s what happens when you write your own book without knowing/understanding the facts and cannot recognise logical conclusions! In a logical book, “subjective reality” is an oxymoron and even if it weren’t, it is still easily trumped by the demonstrated/proven facts!

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

Well i will leave gregorio and bigshot their playground