[Dogmatrix]

But it's not just the introduction you're taking out of context for your assertion that ultra high frequencies have a relevance for gauging audio equipment. The whole study you've referred to has said the original frequencies could not go above 24khz, and that they were modulating the signal and inducing an artificial environment. The conclusion for their study is to make of it what you will with specialized equipment that stimulates audio signals beyond regular ear interaction, and they are not disputing accepted studies for acoustic hearing ranges. To put it more succinctly, music sources do not have such ultra-high frequencies, and most audio reproduction has negligible bone conduction with high frequencies.

Looks like there is a misunderstanding at some level . I can't state my position more clearly than I have already . To continue would be pointless argument .

 

[Dogmatrix]

But it's not just the introduction you're taking out of context for your assertion that ultra high frequencies have a relevance for gauging audio equipment. The whole study you've referred to has said the original frequencies could not go above 24khz, and that they were modulating the signal and inducing an artificial environment. The conclusion for their study is to make of it what you will with specialized equipment that stimulates audio signals beyond regular ear interaction, and they are not disputing accepted studies for acoustic hearing ranges. To put it more succinctly, music sources do not have such ultra-high frequencies, and most audio reproduction has negligible bone conduction with high frequencies.

Apologies that last post was a little lazy . I will explain more fully .
I did not take the introduction at all , out of context or otherwise , only the quoted section .So I make no assertions concerning uhf and its relevance to audio equipment . Any such assertions are entirely assumed by you . I do not refer as such to the entire study only the quoted section . Any other reference to the study is only as evidence the quoted section is not fabricated . I would not argue with your final summary .

 

[Davesrose]

Looks like there is a misunderstanding at some level . I can't state my position more clearly than I have already . To continue would be pointless argument .

I thought you were quite explicit about your beliefs in post #1107....you stated:

Hypothesis

Perception of audible is possible outside of accepted audible limits"

...'
"Ultrasound modulated by different speech sounds can be discriminated in the auditory cortex"

Activation of the auditory cortex by ultrasound / The Lancet 14Feb 1998 vol 351 no 9101 pages 496-497 / Hiroshi Hosoi , Satoshi Imaizumi , Takefumi Sakaguchi , Mitsuo Tonoike , Kiyotaka murata

"Ultrasonic stimulation of the skull with frequencies up to 108khz induces a perception of sound within the head without any sensation of cutaneous feeling , suggesting that these high frequencies are being processed in a modality other than the vibratory-somatosensory system"

Human ultrasonic speech perception / Science 5 july 1991 vol 253 no 5015 pages 82-85 / Lenhardt ML , Skellett R , Wang P , Clarke A

These studies show that a person can hear something and indeed discern speech in ranges far outside accepted audible limits . Problems arise in the direct application of this hypothesis to the question at hand such as the ability of a headphone to produce such a signal at the required level . However it does demonstrate there is more to this game than appears at first glance .'

You're citing studies about perception from stimuli that's not from traditional audio systems, and maintaining your belief that these correlate with normal acoustic stimuli: in which there has been study after study that says through normal acoustic hearing, healthy young adults have a mean hearing range up to 20khz (and it declines with age). Again, the studies do not indicate humans can hear the ultra high frequency capabilities without artificial stimulation through bone conduction, or that the audio systems we're referring to can even have output capable of ultra high frequencies. Your final argument to the regular contributors to this thread is that you're trying to think outside the box. That's fine if you want to keep it completely hypothetical: but you haven't made a scientific case for people being able to hear ultra high frequencies in normal circumstances.

 

[Joe Rasmussen]

I remember the days when transistor amplifiers came out and the claims were that they had as low or lower distortion than tube amps and basically sound identical. We soon realised that was not so. Then really serious people like Matti Otalo showed that there were distortion mechanisms present that people had not yet figured needing a measurement and yes, amplifiers did sound different.

The dinosaurs have come back. The difference between amplifiers sound wise is so small that it does not matter, so goes there story. They point to blind tests, particularly one done 30 years ago, and that this is all settled and anybody who thinks otherwise deserves to have bucket emptied upon them.

Well, there are amplifiers that have recently surfaced is so much better than what we have seen before. They don't come at one particular price point. I am involved in the development based on an incredible ambitious design that was left behind by the late Allen Wright. After 32 months of collaborations, we now have a workable design. The circuit is totally unlike anything previously, it is not based on any earlier designs. It will not be expensive to make. It has now been heard by dozens of people and it just puts smiles on their faces. Also, I believe in a well-conducted blind test it will do very well. But we now have a number of people with prototypes living with them, and that to me has always been the most severe test.

Now if you choose to rubbish the above, should I even care? I am going to be listening to something that to my ears sound amazing and they are not. Where am I losing out? I am not. They are. The negativity will have no affect on me.

But there is also something else that is really obvious, that we can all observe:

1. These dinosaurs are so obnoxious. They see evil in corners where there is none. The audio industry is full of nefarious people, they say.

2. They are a loud minority, they make a big noise for the size of their number. Most people just ignore them.

3. When they find a forum like this, they have their own echo chamber. They rely on circular arguments and repeat known attack lines.

4. They don't realise that blind tests are only the purview of large audio corporations, they are expensive. Buy *Panasonic and you will be OK.

5. Like anything in life, they don't seem to understand that the most difficult test is to live with something or somebody. Judge something on your home turf.

* I used to work for Panasonic.

Don't get caught up in their web. They are destructive and have very little constructive to contribute.

Meanwhile, some bad things do happen, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

 

[bigshot]

I asked a question that wasn't answered...

We're speaking here specifically about recorded music. Why would super audible frequencies be important if blind test after blind test of 16/44.1 vs 24/96 show no audible difference?

A hypothesis in a completely different context that might require further study is fine... But here is solid evidence that super audible frequencies don't make any difference, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find many recording engineers who would think they do. Isn't that the sort of directly applicable evidence we should be pointing to?

 

[bigshot]

The dinosaurs have come back. The difference between amplifiers sound wise is so small that it does not matter, so goes there story. They point to blind tests, particularly one done 30 years ago, and that this is all settled and anybody who thinks otherwise deserves to have bucket emptied upon them.

Welcome back. I still have a question I posed to you that hasn't been answered yet... Are you willing to participate with us here in Sound Science to help us set up a controlled listening test and measurements to verify your claims? All we would need is the loan of a current solid state home audio component that is in operational order and performing to spec that sounds clearly different. We won't need to rely on 30 year old tests then. We can all find out for ourselves.

 

[Dogmatrix]

I thought you were quite explicit about your beliefs in post #1107....you stated:



You're citing studies about perception from stimuli that's not from traditional audio systems, and maintaining your belief that these correlate with normal acoustic stimuli: in which there has been study after study that says through normal acoustic hearing, healthy young adults have a mean hearing range up to 20khz (and it declines with age). Again, the studies do not indicate humans can hear the ultra high frequency capabilities without artificial stimulation through bone conduction, or that the audio systems we're referring to can even have output capable of ultra high frequencies. Your final argument to the regular contributors to this thread is that you're trying to think outside the box. That's fine if you want to keep it completely hypothetical: but you haven't made a scientific case for people being able to hear ultra high frequencies in normal circumstances.

A hypothesis is only a seed like a computer virus (malware in this case) . Pick it up and run or bin it , entirely up to the reader .
I make no statement of belief or correlation , in fact I intentionally point out its lack of direct relevance . It only serves to demonstrate a possibility .
A referenced hypothesis is about as close to science as your going to get around here .
Responding like this is only argument .
A scientific approach would be to conceive and build a counter hypothesis .

 

[Dogmatrix]

I asked a question that wasn't answered...



A hypothesis in a completely different context that might require further study is fine... But here is solid evidence that super audible frequencies don't make any difference, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find many recording engineers who would think they do. Isn't that the sort of directly applicable evidence we should be pointing to?

Yes absolutely . However the inclusion of blind test brings into play human perception which in turn opens the flood gates and all bets are off

 

[Davesrose]

A hypothesis is only a seed like a computer virus (malware in this case) . Pick it up and run or bin it , entirely up to the reader .
I make no statement of belief or correlation , in fact I intentionally point out its lack of direct relevance . It only serves to demonstrate a possibility .
A referenced hypothesis is about as close to science as your going to get around here .
Responding like this is only argument .
A scientific approach would be to conceive and build a counter hypothesis .

Within science, a hypothesis is an initial statement that's open to testing. It will be dropped and continually forgotten if it doesn't meet more scrutiny with experimentation or repeatable observation. Your construct here for "hypothesis" seems more to be appeal to popularity. One doesn't need a counter hypothesis if the original assumption does not correlate with the experiments referenced (in this case, tests with artificial stimuli).

If I can be frank, it's a pretty slim footing to assert noticeable differences in audio equipment is due to ultra high frequencies and cite studies about artificial stimuli. Now if the premise is that there can still be perceptual differences with audio systems...that's very different conditions (IE how well the amplifier stage is and if there's appreciably less distortion with certain equipment).

 

[Dogmatrix]

Within science, a hypothesis is an initial statement that's open to testing. It will be dropped and continually forgotten if it doesn't meet more scrutiny with experimentation or repeatable observation. Your construct here for "hypothesis" seems more to be appeal to popularity. One doesn't need a counter hypothesis if the original assumption does not correlate with the experiments referenced (in this case, tests with artificial stimuli).

If I can be frank, it's a pretty slim footing to assert noticeable differences in audio equipment is due to ultra high frequencies and cite studies about artificial stimuli. Now if the premise is that there can still be perceptual differences with audio systems...that's very different conditions (IE how well the amplifier stage is and if there's appreciably less distortion with certain equipment).

Yes , you are getting the spirit of it now , pick it up or bin it , in this case probably both but its all good .
A valid counter hypothesis would be entirely off subject but go along the lines .
The hypothesis posted by Dogmatrix (insert quote) is full of schiit .
Then find studies posted in reputable journals which prove something loosely relevant such as there is a prevalence of schiit on internet forums or something about fake news .
Then find sections of said studies which relate more closely and quote them .
Give your assessment of how it ties together
Set it free

 

[Davesrose]

Yes , you are getting the spirit of it now , pick it up or bin it , in this case probably both but its all good .
A valid counter hypothesis would be entirely off subject but go along the lines .
The hypothesis posted by Dogmatrix (insert quote) is full of schiit .
Then find studies posted in reputable journals which prove something loosely relevant such as there is a prevalence of schiit on internet forums or something about fake news .
Then find sections of said studies which relate more closely and quote them .
Give your assessment of how it ties together
Set it free

Dude, this is the internet...don't take things to heart so much! I hoped you could have stepped back a bit to fully read my last post. I don't see a scientific footing for asserting hearing ultra high frequencies during normal circumstances....but that's a separate topic than evaluating audio equipment for all their appreciable qualities.

 

[Dogmatrix]

Dude, this is the internet...don't take things to heart so much! I hoped you could have stepped back a bit to fully read my last post. I don't see a scientific footing for asserting hearing ultra high frequencies during normal circumstances....but that's a separate topic than evaluating audio equipment for all their appreciable qualities.

No worries I wasn't getting uppity . I did read your post , that's what I meant by getting the spirit it wasn't meant as a facetious quip . I agree and it is exactly the kind of discourse the hypothesis was designed to generate .

 

[Dogmatrix]

1. As castleofargh pointed out. "no" there is no reliable evidence, let alone a large body of reliable evidence. In fact, the reliable evidence indicates no difference. There also is no reliable evidence which demonstrates anything beyond audible limits, given the conditions of listening to commercial music recordings at a reasonable level with consumer equipment (consumer headphones/speakers).

2. Absolutely! But conversely, what if you haven't "eliminated the impossible", what if you've eliminated something that IS possible? Surely, "what remains" (as it's improbable) is unlikely to be the truth. What if you've eliminated something that isn't just possible but is likely? Surely, "what remains" is extremely unlikely to be the truth. And, what if you eliminated something that isn't just likely but is proven/demonstrated to occur almost continuously and is responsible for the very existence of music in the first place? Surely, "what remains" has no chance, and even less chance still if "what remains" isn't even applicable! You've effectively applied the quote backwards; your "what remains" should have been eliminated and what you've erroneously eliminated should be the "what remains" (and it's not even slightly improbable)!!

G

I appreciate you taking the time to read my post and value your feedback . In this case I must raise doubts to its validity .

1. The term is experiential evidence as in reported observation . I make no claims as to the level of its reliability .

2. Just a quote from a fictional character meant to encourage a spirit of investigation . Totally at a loss as to how you can argue with that .

 

[gregorio]

[1] The dinosaurs have come back.
[2] The difference between amplifiers sound wise is so small that it does not matter, so goes there story.
[2a] They point to blind tests, particularly one done 30 years ago, and that this is all settled and anybody who thinks otherwise deserves to have bucket emptied upon them.
[3] Well, there are amplifiers that have recently surfaced is so much better than what we have seen before.
[4] I am involved in the development based on an incredible ambitious design ...
[5] Also, I believe in a well-conducted blind test it will do very well.
[5a] But we now have a number of people with prototypes living with them, and that to me has always been the most severe test.
[6] Now if you choose to rubbish the above, should I even care?

1. They never went away, they just had to figure out how to lie/market more convincingly.

2. True but of course the "story" is science!
2a. That's a lie. We point to that 30 year old blind test simply because it's probably the most well known example (of the many thousands of examples). However, we do not rely on that one example, we rely on objective evidence (actual measurements), all the other blind/double blind tests and the long established thresholds of audibility. Therefore "yes of course", anyone who comes to a sound science forum and contradicts the wealth of relevant, demonstrable science/reliable evidence going back decades, without a single shred of reliable evidence to back it up, does indeed "deserve to have a bucket emptied upon them" for two reasons: Firstly, they've wasted years of school and secondly, they are perverting/insulting science and therefore this and all other science forums.

3. Not audibly "so much better", unless you have some reliable evidence which contradicts the established science?

4. Of course you are! In fact there are only two options, either you're an audiophile suckered by the marketing BS or, you're someone who makes audiophile products and invents marketing BS.

5. This isn't the "what Joe believes" forum. Present some reliable evidence or it's just marketing BS and ...
5a. As what you believe completely contradicts science and you have NO reliable evidence to support it, it's unwelcome here (or in any science/fact based forum). The actual truth is pretty much the opposite of what (you say) you believe: Uncontrolled, sighted "impressions" and anecdotes are absolutely NOT the "most severe test", in fact, they're just about the least reliable ("severe") of all tests/evidence. The "most severe test" is the controlled double blind test!

6. That's up to you. A few snake oil salesmen obviously do care, because they go to sound science forums and argue their case (using everything BUT science), in an attempt to pervert it and get the science/facts "on their side". Although most snake oil salesmen are bright enough to avoid sound science forums like the plague, they don't bother trying to get science "on their side", they simply make-up lies and completely ignore the actual science/facts!

But there is also something else that is really obvious, that we can all observe:
1. These dinosaurs are so obnoxious. [1a] They see evil in corners where there is none. [1b] The audio industry is full of nefarious people, they say.
2. They are a loud minority, they make a big noise for the size of their number. Most people just ignore them.
3. When they find a forum like this, they have their own echo chamber. [3a] They rely on circular arguments and repeat known attack lines.
4. They don't realise that blind tests are only the purview of large audio corporations, they are expensive.
5. Like anything in life, they don't seem to understand that the most difficult test is to live with something or somebody. Judge something on your home turf.

I absolutely agree but the problem is, that despite it being "really obvious" many/most audiophiles just don't realise they are observing it:

1. "Obnoxious" and I would also add; callous and despicable. They are effectively sociopaths, they either simply don't care that they are deceiving innocent people with their marketing lies or worse, they're actually proud of it!
1a. If you're referring to us: We "see evil in corners" indicated by reliable evidence! Duh!
1b. Again, if you are referring to us, then that's a lie! I for one "say" the audio industry is mainly full of decent people. It's only the very small "audiophile" corner of the audio industry which seems to have a disproportionate number of "nefarious people".

2. Agreed, "they" obviously being audiophile marketers and those suckered by them. Science, music/sound engineers, the rest of the audio industry and even many/most members of the public do indeed "just ignore them" (the small, loud minority of audiophiles and snake oil salesmen), or if the subject does comes up, just refers to them as a bunch of delusional nutters.

3. I don't agree with that: When "they" (marketers and those suckered by them) come to a forum like this they do NOT find an echo chamber and that's what so upsets them, because they are used to other ("audiophile") forums, where science/the actual facts are marginalised or even actively banned!
3a. They (snake oil salesmen and those scammed by them) don't ONLY rely on circular arguments, they also rely on a wide variety of fallacies and outright lies but I agree that they do "repeat known attack lines", two obvious examples, unbridled hypocrisy and childish insults (Eg. "you're all obnoxious dinosaurs")!

4. No, of course we don't realise that, because it's a lie! An ABX test and objective measurements of differences are relatively cheap. ABX software is free and an objective null test only requires a modestly priced ADC (and some other free software). How is free (or modestly priced) "expensive"?

5. Clearly that's just yet another lie! It's NOT like anything in life, it's not like science for example. In science we don't judge something on our "home turf", we create specially designed rooms called "science laboratories" (which I learned when I was about 8 years old!), and then repeat the experiments in different laboratories (or other controlled environments), specifically to eliminate any "home turf" bias! So yet again, what you're suggesting is effectively the exact opposite of science and you're suggesting it in an actual science forum! How much more ridiculous can it possibly get?

All 5 of your points are good examples of 3a: IE. Outright lies and childish insults but most particularly "hypocrisy", because they're actually applicable to snake oil salesmen (and those suckered by them), rather than to us here. I don't get it; how does being hypocritical, making up lies and childish insults (and then being called out on them) help a snake oil salesman, is it simply a matter of their (marketing) pride/ego being blind to the humiliation? Here in the sound science forum one should stick to the science/actual facts .... Why is that such a difficult concept to comprehend?

G

 

[gregorio]

1. The term is experiential evidence as in reported observation . I make no claims as to the level of its reliability .
2. Just a quote from a fictional character meant to encourage a spirit of investigation . Totally at a loss as to how you can argue with that .

1. Yes but experiential evidence on it's own is entirely invalid scientifically. It may spark some scientific enquiry or not, for example if the experiential evidence contradicts a body of existing reliable evidence. If we based science on the amount of experiential evidence, then there wouldn't be science and we'd still believe the earth is the centre of the universe, because we don't experience travelling at thousands of miles an hour (around the sun).

2. I'm not arguing with it, I'm completely agreeing with it! What I'm disagreeing with is your (backwards) application of it.

G