[FunkyBassMan]

That's...why public audiophile forums like this one commonly ban the discussion of science (or banish it to a remote subforum)!

Yet another example of why no one should take what one reads in the Sound "Science" forum remotely seriously.

Posters like this one trot out everything they say as "fact" or "science", when in fact, they routinely make up utter garbage, as here, saying the discussion of science is banned on this forum.

What makes it particularly remarkable is that they claim as "facts" things even a ten-year-old could show in five seconds are complete BS. For example, in two seconds one can read the terms of service and see there is no ban on discussions of science. Indeed, posts involving science have been put up without incident about every minute for decades.

https://www.head-fi.org/articles/terms-of-service.6725/

But do these people apologize or even admit to their errors, even when this patently obscene?

Never.

Welcome to Sound "Science".

Now you know the real reason they've been banished here: not because they discuss science; rather, because they unashamedly slap the label "science" or "fact" on any old crap they come up with.

 

[bigshot]

I buy CDs for stereo and DVD, blu or SACD for multichannel. For streaming, I keep it to the regular lossy setting so I don’t get skips from data underruns. Basically, whatever works.

 

[gregorio]

What makes it particularly remarkable is that they claim as "facts" things even a ten-year-old could show in five seconds are complete BS. For example, in two seconds one can read the terms of service and see there is no ban on discussions of science.

The terms of service clearly state: “5. If what you want to post includes words/phrases like "placebo," "expectation bias," "ABX," "blind testing," etc., please post it in the Sound Science forum.”. Maybe a ten-year-old doesn’t know what “etc.” means and maybe a ten-year-old doesn’t remember the last time this false argument/trolling was posted and the evidence of posts being deleted on the basis that science should be posted in the Sound Science forum? Maybe some posters should try being an adult rather than a ten-year-old?

But do these people apologize or even admit to their errors, even when this patently obscene?

I don’t know about “these people” but you certainly don’t and if that’s not bad enough, you just wait for another thread and post that exact same “patently obscene” BS all over again!

G

 

[VNandor]

Additionally, the TOS also explains how the forum is moderated. Point 6 says "Discussion of blind testing is only allowed in the Sound Science forum."
Perfect example of why lossy compression works. Even though the eyes can see the text, sometimes the brain ignores what the eyes sees just like it ignores what the ear hears.
These points could have been removed from the TOS without @FunkyBassMan noticing it (in a direct switched, level matched ABX test ). Not because he is blind but because he is...

 

[gregorio]

You use to listen to HD Audio music | Hi-Res Audio?

Assuming HD/HR audio means anything greater than 16bit and 44.1kHz (or 48kHz) sampling rate, then in my case “yes”; extensively for many hours a day, typically for at least 5 days a week, for over 30 years. My first professional digital recording setup (in 1993) used 20bit 44.1/48kHz and about 25 years ago I switched to a 24bit system, capable of sampling rates up to 192kHz, although I almost never use 192kHz out of choice. Just for pleasure, I very rarely listen to consumer HR versions and the only time I do is because there are rare instances where a HR version has a slightly better master than the standard res version, EG. The CD version has had additional audio compression applied to differentiate it from the HR version.

What do you think about Direct Stream Digital (DSD)?

I think it’s unfortunate and very annoying! DSD, the basis of SACD, was the first HD/HR format available to consumers (released in 1999). The basic DSD technology was actually quite an old, already being employed in some ADCs and DACs from around 1986 or so but what makes it so “unfortunate and very annoying” is that much of false marketing that Sony invented for it still forms the basis of the audiophile myths and the false audiophile marketing of HD/HR formats even today!

G

 

[polymathic]

Well, this was an interesting and long read! Thank you all! Now, if I remember everything I read and did not miss too many posts, I have a small contribution to make here. I have read a bunch about BT codecs, and key information is rarely available in one spot.

A recap:

1/ Modern BT codecs are transparent and cannot be distinguished via ABX testing. AptX HD, AptX Adaptive, LDAC, AAC (on Apple products but not Android due to hardware encoding) are indistinguishable. (My own ABX testings on codec and lossless encoding demonstrated my incapacity to guess correctly most of the time.)
2/ While these codecs are indistinguishable to the human ear, the way a manufacturer does amplification for each supported codec varies, which leads to volume differences, which leads to people hearing differences attributed to codec, but that are really about volume differences. Example: LDAC on my ML 5909 is louder than AAC. Volume differences are often confused with codec differences.
3/ Even within the Apple ecosystem, AAC quality varies based on hardware. Newer iPhones have better AAC than older iPhones, and MacBooks and iPads have worse AAC than iPhones. While one may not hear that difference, it has been measured.

Extras:
4/ As someone experienced in the realm of audiology, I would not be to quick to dismiss all sounds outside of human hearing. There is evidence that high frequencies outside human hearing range helps locate where a sound comes from. High-end hearing aids will help pinpoint where a sound comes from. Additionally, there is evidence that sound you cannot hear affects the brain, and may make listening more enjoyable: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548

5/ The Dali IO-12 designers chose to skip LDAC because they were unhappy with its performance. Ostensibly, while LDAC may be theoretically better, outside of an ideal environment (basically in real life with regular non-audiophile folks) LDAC quickly degrades and often delivers a worse result than AptX or AAC.

 

[bigshot]

I wouldn’t think acoustic detection of directionality wouldn’t apply when you’re wearing headphones where the sound source is right over the ears. That kind of directional cue probably wouldn’t record the same way it sounds in real life with all the other directional and depth cues.

Does that study say that super audible frequencies improve perceived sound quality? Because I’ve never seen any evidence that they make any difference to preference at all. If they did, that would mean that people could consistently discern them.

 

[polymathic]

I wouldn’t think acoustic detection of directionality wouldn’t apply when you’re wearing headphones where the sound source is right over the ears. That kind of directional cue probably wouldn’t record the same way it sounds in real life with all the other directional and depth cues.

I agree and I was not making that claim. I was just pointing out that sounds we don't hear may impact us in ways that are not easily quantifiable.

 

[bigshot]

They may affect us, like with sonic weapons and that kind of thing. But with home audio, we’re talking about sitting on the couch listening to music for enjoyment. There’s no reason to believe that super audible frequencies affect us in any way that improves sound for that purpose.

 

[musingclouds]

These videos just came out

 

[castleofargh]

4/ As someone experienced in the realm of audiology, I would not be to quick to dismiss all sounds outside of human hearing. There is evidence that high frequencies outside human hearing range helps locate where a sound comes from. High-end hearing aids will help pinpoint where a sound comes from. Additionally, there is evidence that sound you cannot hear affects the brain, and may make listening more enjoyable: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548

You're mistaken about ultrasounds for sound localization. I have a few reason to be confident here:
1/ the audio industry has been grasping at straws to validate any impact from hires. And the results are pretty much 3 papers, one debunked for bad testing conditions, one with tiny statistical significance that would go away with any different choice in the selection of the papers used for the analysis(but even if you trust it's all correct, the result still only suggests a tiny potential audible impact). And third, the link you gave, getting results that are different from other works on audibility(so no reason to take it at face value without a good deal more evidence).
The only part of that paper that's not considered debunked(yet?) is the brain activity recorded. But we have little evidence that it changes anything in how we interpret audio. The human brain discards huge amounts of data at any given moment. Even according to the paper I would strongly advise not to trust too much, there is an issue of ultrasonic content alone doing nothing, which is bad for the idea that it's perceived and not a result of some unfortunate interactions between gears or transducers distortions, like in the first debunked paper. And there is another problem, the possibly more enjoyable experience seems to happen after being exposed to ultrasounds for a while, and not about having ultrasounds at the moment of listening. For all I know, if you have a lightbulb or a computer fan that makes a bunch of loud ultrasound noises, it might be all you need to enjoy audio more(I don't believe it, I'm just saying it's a possible interpretation of that paper).
But of course ultrasonic content is, at large, bad for hearing(higher energy signal), more so because nobody can tell when it's loud.

2/ I guess the point is that if we had any other solid research leading to some positive impact on localization, I strongly suspect I would have heard about it. People bring your link or the meta-analysis when they want to support ultrasound anything. There is not much else. Some white papers never peer reviewed, never replicated that indirectly imply ultrasonic audibility, and stuff about ultrasonic detection by humans that involve the skin or the eye and dangerously high level ultrasounds.

3/ Sound localization already doesn't rely much on audible high frequencies because the periodicity is fast enough for the brain to confuse one in the left ear with a different one in the other. There is some use from the frequency response difference between the ears with higher frequencies being blocked more by the head on the ear opposite to the sound source, but for that to have any role, we still need good sensitivity which goes down at higher freqs and is arguably just gone at ultrasonic frequencies.

Maybe you're thinking of hearing aids that bother trying to get something good above 8kHz? Which could be outside human hearing for some older peeps with serious damages. Or the very real efforts to adjust the frequency response at the ear canal(for more compliant HRTF) so that the user can indeed make better use of the FR cues for sound localization. That is real, and I did read about such efforts with great interest, if only with the hope of getting that done for earbuds and in ears with a FR adjusted for each customer after a visit to the audiologist.

 

[bigshot]

I think the legendary bat shark uses ultra high frequencies for sound localization.

 

[gregorio]

There is evidence that high frequencies outside human hearing range helps locate where a sound comes from.

Do you mean anecdotal evidence or marketing material, or do you mean actual reliable evidence? If it’s the latter, could you please provide a reference?

Additionally, there is evidence that sound you cannot hear affects the brain, and may make listening more enjoyable: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548

Yes, there is evidence that ultra-sound affects the brain, the paper you referenced but that was only with speakers, not HPs and there was not reliable evidence that it makes “listening more enjoyable”, that was largely speculative and indeed, there’s far more evidence that ultra-sonic content does the opposite, makes it “unpleasant”. However, most evidence indicates that there’s no audible effect of ultra-sound at reasonable listening levels, Ashihara and various others for example. If you are after more accurate, comprehensive and rigorous recent research, I would recommend this paper published in Nature in 2020: “High-frequency sound components of high-resolution audio are not detected in auditory sensory memory” - Nittono.

G

​

 

[polymathic]

Do you mean anecdotal evidence or marketing material, or do you mean actual reliable evidence? If it’s the latter, could you please provide a reference?

I believe I read that in a white paper from Oticon ten years ago. Anecdotally, all I can say is that some hearing aids are better with sound location, while others are pretty ineffective.

Anyhow, as someone who teaches rhetoric, my fourth point was mostly about acknowledging we don't know everything about sounds we can't hear, and showing a little graciousness to those who swear they hear differences. Personally, I can't discern between codecs with any accuracy, nor can I discern 256 kbps from lossless with any accuracy (tested using a ABX app).

 

[old tech]

I believe I read that in a white paper from Oticon ten years ago. Anecdotally, all I can say is that some hearing aids are better with sound location, while others are pretty ineffective.

Anyhow, as someone who teaches rhetoric, my fourth point was mostly about acknowledging we don't know everything about sounds we can't hear, and showing a little graciousness to those who swear they hear differences. Personally, I can't discern between codecs with any accuracy, nor can I discern 256 kbps from lossless with any accuracy (tested using a ABX app).

So are you saying that those hearing aids that are better in sound location do so because they reproduce frequencies beyond 20khz? I'd like to see some evidence of these ultrasonic hearing aids.