1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Objectivists board room

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by joe bloggs, May 28, 2015.
First
 
Back
282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291
293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302
Next
 
Last
  1. cel4145
    Well, let's not compare science with pseudo scientific claims from the audiophile community. The idea that DAC differences aren't measurable isn't coming from the scientific community. Just because some people "theorize" that anal probe alien abductions are real, doesn't mean we should put any stock in it.

    Then I don't understand the sweeping generalization about expectation bias. For instance, you should know that volume differences can affect perceived differences in listening tests. It's not all about expectation bias.
     
  2. bigshot
    If you give a person a listening test between two identical sounds and play one of them a dB or two louder than the other, the person doing the test will pick the louder one as sounding better, even though there's no difference. This is a well known thing. That's why controlled blind comparison tests have to be line level matched.

    Likewise auditory memory in people is very short... for subtle differences, it can be as short as just a few seconds. That's why controlled listening tests need to be direct A/B switched, so the person can directly compare two sounds right next to each other with no time gap between samples.

    If you want to do a controlled listening test, you need to be in control of the controls. It really isn't that hard. All it takes is a pair of preamps or amps so you can adjust the line level and a switcher so you can switch between inputs.

    Human ears are human ears. Young ears can usually hear everything a human can possibly hear perfectly. Older ears might have a little bit of rolloff at the top end of the spectrum. Some people have damaged hearing. The condition of one's ears has a lot more to do with how well one can hear than training and smarts do. You can't train your ears into hearing things that are beyond their ability to hear. It's not like a Superman super power. I think a lot of audiophiles look at training their ears the way a Yogi tries to fly. He squats down and tries to hop an inch off the ground. The next time he tries to hop two inches... and so on. He figures if he just continues to do that, eventually he will be able to fly.

    Yogis can't fly. Hearing is what it is. You can't will yourself to overcome physics. All you can do is learn enough to know how to analyze what you hear. The best way to do that is to read up about how physics works and to surround yourself with people who know more than you do. Then all you have to do is ask the right questions.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
    colonelkernel8 and cel4145 like this.
  3. sonitus mirus
    I think it was your use of "always" that was being picked on with regards to loudness differences. With 2 nearly similar audio samples, the louder one is often perceived to be better sounding. Though, no matter how loud the volume is cranked up, you would never get me to believe that Leonard Nimoy's version of "Both Sides Now" sounds better than one sung by Joni Mitchel, herself.

     
  4. bigshot
    If Joni tried to sing Bilbo Baggins, she would mess it up too, so it's ying and yang! (Shatner's Rocket Man might be better than Elton John's though.)

    Here is my theory... If something is 99.99% true, I don't see any point in acknowledging the .01% every time I speak the truth. That just gives the tiny exception more attention than it deserves. Audiophiles will inevitably grab onto that tiny exception to justify the lie they dearly want to believe. Then you have to spend ten posts trying to explain to them how the .01% doesn't apply. You end up spending more time discussing the exception than you do the truth. The waters get all muddy and no one comes away with any sense of the truth. It's easier to just call a spade a spade.

    Those with an anal retentive bent can feel free to add footnotes to what I say. I don't see a need to do that myself.
     
    Argyris and colonelkernel8 like this.
  5. Zapp_Fan
    This is a pretty bad analogy. The Higgs Boson was theorized but not proved until instruments were built that could actually measure its existence.

    In the case of audio, we have instruments that are more sensitive than the best pair of human ears in existence. I won't say that every acoustic phenomenon in and around the head is fully understood. However, every difference between digital / electrical audio signals that CAN exist is measurable far beyond the sensitivity of human ears. If a difference is not measurable (not with amateur gear, but strictly not measurable in any context) at the signal level, it's because there isn't one. WYSIWYG.

    Blind tests can be passed by chance. But, if you have someone passing a blind test at p < 0.1 and not measuring a difference, I will simply say the measurements are not being done properly, or the wrong thing is being measured. Measurements can be hard - (anyone remember the scientists that couldn't disprove they had neutrinos going tachyon?) but in the case of audio you can't come up with something that is audible but not measurable in principle.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
  6. RRod
    You've either tested these things out by titrating in potential deviations until they are easily audible, or you haven't. Enough with this 'I heard somewhere that someone dun heard something' stuff. Take a signal and add in some THD or crosstalk or change the stopband attentuation or something. Still waiting on response to the fact that a theoretically perfect reconstruction does exist...
     
  7. colonelkernel8
    I don’t know if you post here a lot (I’ve been AWOL for a few years) but as a completely off-topic compliment: it’s extremely pleasing to me to see a Head-Fi MotT posting in sound science. That takes guts.
     
    Zapp_Fan likes this.
  8. Zapp_Fan
    Haha, thanks. I work at the relaunched Aiwa which until recently was not even in the headphone game. We are now, but as a non-sponsor I am not permitted to plug our products.

    On a personal level my views are much further on the science side than anything else. I'm no engineer and I'm well aware of that fact, so I try not to wade too far out of my depth. My success on that point is moderate, lol.

    On the professional level, one of my major tasks is to seek out objectively better sound quality (testing samples and prototypes, designing specs) - since we go for a mass market I can't afford to let my tastes override genuine improvements or lack thereof. So if I were to become a subjectivist I'd also become bad at my job. Posting here keeps me sharp. :)

    Also, I try not to trash talk any particular piece of gear or opinion of gear - which is also not allowed for MotT anyway.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
    colonelkernel8 likes this.
  9. Glmoneydawg
    The Higgs Boson still looks like an excuse for the expense of the particle collider....not buying it.C'mon now.Lots of promise from this thing and no meat.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
  10. colonelkernel8
    You know they found the Higgs Boson right? Or are you just joking?
     
  11. castleofargh Contributor
    they said they found it, but you don't see other places replicating the experiment. to me it's a clear sign that it's a lie and that the scientific community helps covering the lie. as always.
    I mean how hard can it be to make a few other giant cyclotrons and test for ourselves? plus there are things we can hear but can't measure in music, so don't tell me we can detect a Boson. it just doesn't make sense.

    meanwhile the real hero achieved several hundred meters in the air with his "flat earth research" rocket. real science!
     
    colonelkernel8 likes this.
  12. bigshot
    I heard that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax!
     
  13. Glmoneydawg
    to be honest i stopped following this a few years ago...so no not joking...just out of the loop
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018
  14. Glmoneydawg
    ok did some reading and i obviously stand corrected.....cant wait for these guys to start building stereo equipement....Quark Audio has a nice ring to it
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2018
  15. skwoodwiva
    There is no training for hearing acuity.
    You are born with it.
    There is no training for hearing acuity, not much unlike other physical attributes. Eyesight, voice tone (voice print if I may) I could list hundreds.
     
First
 
Back
282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291
293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302
Next
 
Last

Share This Page