[cel4145]

The Higgs boson particle, from what I understand, didn't exists until it was proved it did. For 50 years it was a theory until was a fact. Sure, lots of theories are proved wrong, but when evidence points to something, and theory points to the something, there is likely something.

My point: If a blind test of two DACs with different implementations point to a difference in sound, even if that cannot be measured, then it's probable we just haven't figured out what to measure, or we don't have the right tools to measure. Expectation bias is very real, but assuming it explains all perceived differences is as dogmatic as blind trusting the reviews of audiophile pundits.

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.

 

[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.

 

[sonitus mirus]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

You ignored the emphasis I put in the work "need" in my original response. I will be more clear

And once again, I'm not in the subjectivist camp. If something is not measurable but stands up to a blind test, then something is going on there. I don't need an empirical example of this for it to be true, but I have provided at least one.

The Higgs boson particle, from what I understand, didn't exists until it was proved it did. For 50 years it was a theory until was a fact. Sure, lots of theories are proved wrong, but when evidence points to something, and theory points to the something, there is likely something.

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.

 

[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...

 

[colonelkernel8]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

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.

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.

 

[colonelkernel8]

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.

You know they found the Higgs Boson right? Or are you just joking?

 

[castleofargh]

You know they found the Higgs Boson right? Or are you just joking?

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!

 

[bigshot]

I heard that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax!

 

[Glmoneydawg]

You know they found the Higgs Boson right? Or are you just joking?

to be honest i stopped following this a few years ago...so no not joking...just out of the loop

 

[Glmoneydawg]

You know they found the Higgs Boson right? Or are you just joking?

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

 

[skwoodwiva]

There is certainly something to be said for training one's ears, for example, learning to recognize different frequency ranges by ear or what subtle harmonic distortion sounds like, or what a better/worse attack sounds like, can be learned. One way to do this is listen to the same songs over and over on different equipment with known, measurable differences, and listen carefully to specific sounds within the recording. Another way is to spend a great deal of time listening to the same things while messing with an equalizer and other DSP tools.

However, if the person saying their ears are well-trained, but aren't specific about WHAT they are "trained" for, I agree that skepticism is warranted. In a sense, you can't train your ears to hear more "musicality" or "fluency" or any of those other flowery things, because those phenomena are (if they're real at all - often just pleasant names for placebo effect) aggregates of other things.

If someone has truly well-trained ears, they'll be able to pass ABX tests a bit more often than your average punter, not because their ears work better, but because they have a mental checklist of things to listen for and know what those things sound like in a generalized way. But that's about as far as it goes. Someone with legitimately well-trained ears is not going to try and convince you that they can hear some unknown-to-science "musicality" of a DAC because their training lets them know that A) such things don't exist and B) you can't actually hear them even if they do.

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.