[BS5711]

In fairness to Ghoost, finding audible changes with every imaginable component or tweak and apparently having hearing abilities beyond scientific understanding is hardly a unique to him, it seems Head Fi is full of people with similar traits.

 

[2leftears]

I'm a bit late but I'll share my experience. I don't know if it's related to my autism, but I'm treble sensitive. I made the error of buting the S12 Pro and it was a nightmare. I have problems dealing with loud music *UNLESS* it's music I like. I can listen fairly loud to my music as long as there's no sibilance (Etymotic and Zero Red all the way, baby!).

Having problems dealing with loud music *UNLESS* it is music you like is a pretty common thing I would have thought, likely not related to your autism.

Sibilance is an issue for me too, very unpleasant. For some reason overly sibilant vocals are far more annoying to hear than music instruments recorded with too much treble; I don't know what makes the human voice so different in that respect compared to (other) instruments. Those actually mixing and mastering music probably have some insight.

There is research out there that does suggest autistic people process music differently; but as far as I can tell the conclusions are very inconsistent; much may depend on the individual, which begs the question how much categorically can really be said about it at all.

Personally, I connect with melodies in music far better than with lyrics, which some research suggests may be common in autistic people. Specifically, 80's/90's UK shoegaze/dream-pop inspired music seems to really tickle my brain the right way, especially the way the genre has been adopted and perfected in Japan (for those who have never heard of it, an example below)

 

[bigshot]

In fairness to Ghoost, finding audible changes with every imaginable component or tweak and apparently having hearing abilities beyond scientific understanding is hardly a unique to him, it seems Head Fi is full of people with similar traits.

Most people don’t derail an entire forum because of that.

 

[gregorio]

imo for the actual truth you "have to" read along the lines.... eg question the current state of science

Sure, you go right ahead and question if 1+1=2, if the Earth might be flat, if gravity is wrong and won’t kill you jumping off a cliff, if the sun is made of cheese, if digital theory is wrong, therefore computers and the internet don’t exist and a wealth of other questions you must ask if you’re going to “question the current state of science” upon which our modern world relies.

so it seems "sound science forum" isnt actually a place to discuss science related topics but more of a "proofen facts and we dont question anything - forum" and i guess that is how many objectivist like their "facts"

Huh, what do you think science is if it’s not “proven facts” and why would we question facts that have been proven, don’t you know what “proven” means? And, if that ridiculous nonsense isn’t more than enough, you even throw in yet another strawman fallacy: It’s a lie that we don’t question anything! We obviously don’t question proven facts (that would be stupid, ignorant or both!) and we generally don’t question established science without reliable evidence indicating it should be questioned, beyond that we’ll question almost anything/everything.

There’s no point addressing all the other nonsense in your post, it’s clear you don’t even know the basics of what science is (and therefore when it can rationally be questioned) and all you’ve got is BS, lies and fallacies!

G

 

[BS5711]

Most people don’t derail an entire forum because of that.

Of course that is true.

 

[Killcomic]

Having problems dealing with loud music *UNLESS* it is music you like is a pretty common thing I would have thought, likely not related to your autism.

Oh, it goes beyond that, I'm afraid. I can't stay in pubs or even loud places for long. I get a physical reaction to loud noise. My wife and her normie friends are just fine while I'm cowering in a corner.
For family reunions, I have to take Etymotics to block the noise!
Maybe it's related to autism or not, but it's hell to me.

 

[Ghoostknight]

Personally, I connect with melodies in music far better than with lyrics, which some research suggests may be common in autistic people.

interesting...... i pretty much get only melodies stuck in my head, barely lyrics unless its part of a melodic refrain for example

Sure, you go right ahead and question if 1+1=2, if the Earth might be flat, if gravity is wrong and won’t kill you jumping off a cliff, if the sun is made of cheese, if digital theory is wrong, therefore computers and the internet don’t exist and a wealth of other questions you must ask if you’re going to “question the current state of science” upon which our modern world relies.

1+1=2
earth = globe
are "absolute facts" , a hearing threshhold established through studys suggesting the audible threshhold lies at eg -70db *IS NOT*, the only thing they "really" proof is that *on average* you can hear *until* that threshhold *reliably*
i dont even have to look specific studys up to tell you they came up with different results... depending on various factors

Most people don’t derail an entire forum because of that.

and other people shouldnt feel like thats the case

im not saying *science is wrong* but more of a *science is right, but it needs get "more right"*
im not saying a study establishing a *reliable testable audible threshhold under certain circumstances* is *wrong* per say, it just STILL doesnt tell the whole truth (as it seems *TO ME*)

there are numerous objective facts that *COULD* lead to a sonic improvement, the whole thing science struggles with is *reliable* figuring out how low the threshholds really go and imo we very much go into *placebo level like territory* if we try to figure out the real threshholds, its what its and "playing" like everything is perfectly figured out isnt the way to go... the whole placebo stuff if you actually know what it does introduces way to much uncertainty (for both camps and pretty much ALL testing methods to various degrees...) to even *think* everything is *certain*

 

[castleofargh]

Oh, it goes beyond that, I'm afraid. I can't stay in pubs or even loud places for long. I get a physical reaction to loud noise. My wife and her normie friends are just fine while I'm cowering in a corner.
For family reunions, I have to take Etymotics to block the noise!
Maybe it's related to autism or not, but it's hell to me.

In France there are some very minimal efforts to makes places more autism friendly, and one of them is to have hours when a majority of supermarkets turn off music, audio announcements, and a bunch of them also turn off every other light. When there is almost nobody inside, some places feel both pleasantly relaxing, and like a scene in any zombie movie ever, right before some moron inevitably goes and opens a forbidden door. ^_^
I'm not autistic, I really dislike loud stuff anyway. I often pass as a disrespectful twat because I tell people to stop talking so loudly to me when I'm right in front of them. I keep doing it anyway.

I think one important point of interest with autism is how their brains deal with multisensory modalities(the basic sensory data). Except for elite audiophiles and reviewers who, as we all know from their own numerous statements, are better and stronger than basic humans, the rest of us have bottom up and top down integration, where our experience of any sensory input is influenced by other sensory inputs, memories, mood, and expectations. Differences in how those events happen in the brain are a big deal for everyday interactions.
People do have the ability to willingly focus more on one thing, and at least at a conscious level, ignore more of "the noise"(often exemplified by the cocktail party effect). Difficulties or inability to do so can understandably turn seemingly trivial family reunions into confusing and stressful events.
I imagine there is a significant difference between sounds being perceived as too loud like it is often for me(maybe painfully so), and loud sounds grabbing one's attention to the point where he can't focus on people and events occurring around him. The more extreme cases of ASD do look like some overdose of sensory inputs the brain fails to ignore or connect in a more coherent way.

 

[bigshot]

The thresholds of perception aren't averages. They are best case for human ears. The JDD (just detectable difference) is for someone with perfect hearing. Many (if not most) people would fall below that threshold.

 

[2leftears]

interesting...... i pretty much get only melodies stuck in my head, barely lyrics unless its part of a melodic refrain for example

When I say 'connect' with melodies I don't necessarily mean them getting stuck in one's head.

Other research suggested that some autistic people have far above average skills in remembering lyrics. As I said, it seems to depend very much on the individual person so any broad-brush conclusions/assumptions re. auditory processing in ASD individuals may not be all that relevant in the end.

In France there are some very minimal efforts to makes places more autism friendly, and one of them is to have hours when a majority of supermarkets turn off music, audio announcements, and a bunch of them also turn off every other light. When there is almost nobody inside, some places feel both pleasantly relaxing, and like a scene in any zombie movie ever, right before some moron inevitably goes and opens a forbidden door. ^_^
I'm not autistic, I really dislike loud stuff anyway. I often pass as a disrespectful twat because I tell people to stop talking so loudly to me when I'm right in front of them. I keep doing it anyway.

I think one important point of interest with autism is how their brains deal with multisensory modalities(the basic sensory data). Except for elite audiophiles and reviewers who, as we all know from their own numerous statements, are better and stronger than basic humans, the rest of us have bottom up and top down integration, where our experience of any sensory input is influenced by other sensory inputs, memories, mood, and expectations. Differences in how those events happen in the brain are a big deal for everyday interactions.
People do have the ability to willingly focus more on one thing, and at least at a conscious level, ignore more of "the noise"(often exemplified by the cocktail party effect). Difficulties or inability to do so can understandably turn seemingly trivial family reunions into confusing and stressful events.
I imagine there is a significant difference between sounds being perceived as too loud like it is often for me(maybe painfully so), and loud sounds grabbing one's attention to the point where he can't focus on people and events occurring around him. The more extreme cases of ASD do look like some overdose of sensory inputs the brain fails to ignore or connect in a more coherent way.

I hate pubs and loud places; can't understand a word anyone says. In many people this can be a indicator for hearing loss, but mine isn't. In my case it is more likely APD (auditory processing disorder). So what you suggest re. how autistic people's brains may be dealing differently with multi-sensory modalities, it would be interesting to see if there is a link between ASD and APD.

What baffles me is that whilst I cannot single out spoken words in a noisy environment, in music on the other hand I have little problems singling out instruments. Maybe there is cognitive training involved?; as I tend to avoid noisy places I never really trained myself to focus on voices in a noisy environment.

EDIT: a very quick perusal on the web seems to suggest that APD in ASD subjects often goes undiagnosed after an initial diagnosis of ASD. It seems there is also research in this area suggesting that ASD subjects who don't have APD but are otherwise still struggling with interpretation of speech can still benefit from APD therapy. Interesting.
https://auditorycenter.com/what-is-auditory-processing-disorder/autism-spectrum-disorder-apd/

 

[gregorio]

1+1=2 … earth = glob … are "absolute facts" ,

They’re proven science and you stated science should be questioned, so why aren’t you questioning these scientific facts?

a hearing threshhold established through studys suggesting the audible threshhold lies at eg -70db *IS NOT*,

The basic hearing thresholds have not been established through studies and they do not suggest the audible thresholds lies at -70dB. So just ANOTHER lie and strawman fallacy. Why do you keep posting lies and fallacies and why do you think that’s in anyway acceptable in a science discussion forum? And incidentally, the actual truth is that human thresholds were originally established with studies by the late 1890’s, then numerous subsequent studies were done, millions of audiograms taken and even the measuring of subjects autonomic responses and the responses of the actual auditory cortex. ALL of these various methods and the millions of data points science has collected over the last century or so confirm and corroborate the established hearing thresholds.

the only thing they "really" proof is that *on average* you can hear *until* that threshhold *reliably*

That’s another lie. Science has measured millions of people, the data has NOT only been collected from average people, it’s also been collected from hearing impaired people, while scientific studies tend to use test subjects who are not only trained but have particularly good hearing and the thresholds are NOT “on average” they’re the absolute threshold that no one, even under the most propitious of circumstances has exceeded, despite all the decades of testing.

i dont even have to look specific studys up to tell you they came up with different results... depending on various factors

Sure, some studies do not have or are not designed to have the most propitious circumstances and therefore have varying results. What they do NOT have is results that vary beyond the thresholds, only results that vary above them. Can you produce any studies that “came up with different results” that actually exceeded the established thresholds? And, you are claiming hearing abilities way beyond the thresholds even though you’re nowhere near “the most propitious circumstances” any way, do you have a world class anechoic chamber, are you a teenager/young adult with perfect hearing?

im not saying *science is wrong* but more of a *science is right, but it needs get "more right"*

How? How is over a century of scientific testing, the actual measuring of the human ear’s anatomy/physiology and of the aural nerves and of human auditory cortex response, along with millions of audiograms not already as “right” as it possibly could be and how could it be “more right”? This is just more utter nonsense, few things in science have been as rigorously or extensively tested!

there are numerous objective facts that *COULD* lead to a sonic improvement,

Sure and even more objective facts that could not lead to a sonic improvement. An obvious example is an objective fact that could not possibly result in a sonic improvement because it is below the level required to even exist as sound, let alone the much higher level that transducers can actually produce! Again, you appear not to understand the basic facts of what science is, fir example, the Scientific Method.

the whole thing science struggles with is *reliable* figuring out how low the threshholds really go

That is just more utter BS you’ve made up, what evidence do you have to support that ludicrous claim? If established science did struggle with “reliable figuring out”, then by definition it would not be established science. So again, clearly you don’t even know what science is. And also again, science could hardly have figured out more reliably “how low the thresholds really go”. You think millions of test subjects over the course of a century is not enough, along with all the other reliable physiological and cortical evidence?

and imo we very much go into *placebo level like territory* if we try to figure out the real threshholds

What do you mean “if we try to figure out the real thresholds”? Science tried to figure out the real thresholds over 150 years ago, by nearly a century ago it succeeded and a further century of testing has done NOTHING other than confirm those “real thresholds”. And, yes we do “very much go into placebo like territory” which is why a century or so ago we developed testing methodologies that eliminated placebo effect!

Again, it’s just all BS; you don’t know what science is, you don’t know how “right” it is or if/how it could apparently be “more right”, you don’t know what’s already been discovered, you don’t even how it’s been tested and corroborated, let alone how reliably and yet none of that stops you arguing against it in a science discussion forum. I can’t even imagine a more comprehensive example of “Arguing from Ignorance”!

G

 

[BrokeAudiophileMan]

I was diagnosed with autism when I was 28. I tried to "unalive myself" as the youth say and ended up at a psychiatrist's office and within 5 minutes he goes "You know you're autistic right?" and I was like "No, I'm not". He was right though, got official diagnosis soon after. I always felt like I was an alien. I noticed that being echoed by others who have posted here. I honestly don't know how my autism correlates to my hobbies but I've always loved good sound quality and anything electronic, so I became a computer repair guy. I could never afford anything decent audio equipment wise in my youth (I'm 41 now) but when I was 23 I did get my hands on a Klipsch iFi 2.1 system for my PC which cost me about $600 Canadian dollars which was a LOT to me back then. I fell in love with the sound which was a quantum leap over the turd-grade PC speakers I'd used all my life, or the cheapo $50 boombox I had as a kid. I bought a really good sound card and enjoyed that system until NHL 08 on PS3 unexpectedly had volume 3-4X what I was expecting on startup and blew out the tweeters on the speakers. They were out of warranty and now sounded dead, so I got rid of those and lived in no-fi land for years until 2015 when I was 32. At that point I scraped enough money together to buy Hifiman HE400i and a Teac UD301 DAC and a 1st gen Schiit Asgard. It was pretty good, and I floated by with that until 2023 when I started having a bit more budget and I've been building out my Head-fi collection since then. Sorry for the life story.
As far as audio is concerned, I can hear any note and tell you what note it is. I can't tell you the octave it's in or anything like that but I can say "That's a C" and I'm always right. My grade 9 music teacher found that fascinating for some reason. Probably autism related. I also took piano and picked it up lightning fast but my heart wasn't in it. I'm more of a listener than a music maker. As an autistic person, socializing is not fun for me and is exhausting. I still have a deep human need for socialization so I force myself to hang out with a friend once every two weeks or so for an hour or two. Most of the time if I'm not busy I'm listening to headphones. I find that I not only enjoy music but I also appreciate really well mastered audio from movies/tv shows as well as youtube videos. Some youtubers have awesome audio quality. Sometimes I'll watch a comedy special I've seen on netflix like 5x just because I enjoy the sound quality on good headphones.

 

[BrokeAudiophileMan]

They’re proven science and you stated science should be questioned, so why aren’t you questioning these scientific facts?

The basic hearing thresholds have not been established through studies and they do not suggest the audible thresholds lies at -70dB. So just ANOTHER lie and strawman fallacy. Why do you keep posting lies and fallacies and why do you think that’s in anyway acceptable in a science discussion forum? And incidentally, the actual truth is that human thresholds were originally established with studies by the late 1890’s, then numerous subsequent studies were done, millions of audiograms taken and even the measuring of subjects autonomic responses and the responses of the actual auditory cortex. ALL of these various methods and the millions of data points science has collected over the last century or so confirm and corroborate the established hearing thresholds.

That’s another lie. Science has measured millions of people, the data has NOT only been collected from average people, it’s also been collected from hearing impaired people, while scientific studies tend to use test subjects who are not only trained but have particularly good hearing and the thresholds are NOT “on average” they’re the absolute threshold that no one, even under the most propitious of circumstances has exceeded, despite all the decades of testing.

Sure, some studies do not have or are not designed to have the most propitious circumstances and therefore have varying results. What they do NOT have is results that vary beyond the thresholds, only results that vary above them. Can you produce any studies that “came up with different results” that actually exceeded the established thresholds? And, you are claiming hearing abilities way beyond the thresholds even though you’re nowhere near “the most propitious circumstances” any way, do you have a world class anechoic chamber, are you a teenager/young adult with perfect hearing?

How? How is over a century of scientific testing, the actual measuring of the human ear’s anatomy/physiology and of the aural nerves and of human auditory cortex response, along with millions of audiograms not already as “right” as it possibly could be and how could it be “more right”? This is just more utter nonsense, few things in science have been as rigorously or extensively tested!

Sure and even more objective facts that could not lead to a sonic improvement. An obvious example is an objective fact that could not possibly result in a sonic improvement because it is below the level required to even exist as sound, let alone the much higher level that transducers can actually produce! Again, you appear not to understand the basic facts of what science is, fir example, the Scientific Method.

That is just more utter BS you’ve made up, what evidence do you have to support that ludicrous claim? If established science did struggle with “reliable figuring out”, then by definition it would not be established science. So again, clearly you don’t even know what science is. And also again, science could hardly have figured out more reliably “how low the thresholds really go”. You think millions of test subjects over the course of a century is not enough, along with all the other reliable physiological and cortical evidence?

What do you mean “if we try to figure out the real thresholds”? Science tried to figure out the real thresholds over 150 years ago, by nearly a century ago it succeeded and a further century of testing has done NOTHING other than confirm those “real thresholds”. And, yes we do “very much go into placebo like territory” which is why a century or so ago we developed testing methodologies that eliminated placebo effect!

Again, it’s just all BS; you don’t know what science is, you don’t know how “right” it is or if/how it could apparently be “more right”, you don’t know what’s already been discovered, you don’t even how it’s been tested and corroborated, let alone how reliably and yet none of that stops you arguing against it in a science discussion forum. I can’t even imagine a more comprehensive example of “Arguing from Ignorance”!

G

Good points. Are you on the spectrum? This is a very spectrummy response. Full of accurate info, but also hostile. I can relate as I often write like this.

 

[bigshot]

We usually get inaccurate info and hostile.

 

[gregorio]

Good points. Are you on the spectrum? This is a very spectrummy response. Full of accurate info, but also hostile.

I’m not on the spectrum myself and yes, my response was hostile but there’s quite a history with that particular user. Unfortunately, he doesn’t really understand what science is, how it works or how it’s obtained, confirmed or organised. He seems to think that science is just a bunch of hare-brained ideas and opinions and therefore any hare-brained idea or opinion he comes up with is equally as factually valid as established scientific laws and theories. He’s effectively very anti-science and someone repeatedly making false assertions and anti-scientific posts in an actual science discussion forum is of course eventually going to rub many of us up the wrong way and elicit hostile responses from some of us.

G