Testing audiophile claims and myths

[FunkyBassMan]

You do not know that you need it. Between the very many ways tracks are mastered, the very many frequency responses of headphones, and just a little bit of personal taste, it is extremely unlikely that the frequency response you have at a given time actually is your favorite FR.
Now EQ isn't that easy to apply as we need, it takes time to learn about it and about our own perception of the changes. So it's not too surprising for someone to fool around, make a mess and decide EQ is wrong. But you will have a hard time finding literature saying it's better not to EQ headphones. Objectively, there are things to correct. Subjectively, FR is one of the most important variables for preferred sound.
I'm not telling you what to do, you should do what you want for whatever reason you have to want it. But the FR is statistically going to be wrong, and EQ is the tool to try and mitigate that wrongness. We kind of all need it.

Extremely well expressed..

I’d only add that because music enjoyment is at its essence an unconscious, automatic experience,, you won’t know what EQ you like until you try it.

@Conan1974

EQing can be very simple. You pick a frequency, raise it, move the frequency around until you hear things you like or don't like, and raise or lower accordingly. Then to fine-tune, play with the setting that decides how much around that frequency you want to change too. That might sound like more tweaking than you want to do. But bear in mind that while all this technical stuff we blather on about matters a little, EQ is MUCH, MUCH more powerful in terms of ability to improve your enjoyment of music listening.

 

[Conan1974]

No thanks i am just fine, with what I have

 

[gregorio]

How something that was not there in the first place, can later evolve, show up?

If You are talking about nuances than in my opinion, this where our imagination comes to play.

That’s the logical hole, the performance of say a DAC, a filter or a cable does not evolve. As you say, it’s there in the first place or it’s never there unless your imagination invents it. The problem with FunkyBassMan and others is a sort of narcissistic anthropomorphism, DACs, cables, Codecs etc., do not have perceptions, experiences, listener preferences, etc. The idea of testing a component or process is to test that component or process, not to test a listener or bunch of listeners. This seems blindingly obvious but some just can’t seem to get it, it’s all about them and their response.

Of course the issue you're glossing over ( yet again) is that short-term testing doesn't tell the full story about how subtle differences or listener preferences evolve over extnded listening sessions. Auditory perception and listener preference aren't static OR entirely captured in short-term memory alone.

It is not an issue I’m “glossing over yet again”, it’s an issue that I’m yet again trying to eliminate completely because it is utterly irrelevant, it is a completely different and unrelated issue! This parrot is dead, it is no more, it has ceased to be, this is an ex-parrot …. How many more times? If we’re testing for some audible difference in a cable, amp, codec or whatever, then we’re testing that cable, amp, codec, we are NOT testing your preferences and we’re certainly not testing how your preferences evolve over time. Cables, amps, DACs, etc, do not have any perceptual or auditory learning, so citing papers on auditory learning supports your arguments how? This parrot is bloody DEAD! How many more times?

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

That’s the logical hole, the performance of say a DAC, a filter or a cable does not evolve. As you say, it’s there in the first place or it’s never there unless your imagination invents it. The problem with FunkyBassMan and others is a sort of narcissistic anthropomorphism, DACs, cables, Codecs etc., do not have perceptions, experiences, listener preferences, etc. The idea of testing a component or process is to test that component or process, not to test a listener or bunch of listeners. This seems blindingly obvious but some just can’t seem to get it, it’s all about them and their response.

It is not an issue I’m “glossing over yet again”, it’s an issue that I’m yet again trying to eliminate completely because it is utterly irrelevant, it is a completely different and unrelated issue! This parrot is dead, it is no more, it has ceased to be, this is an ex-parrot …. How many more times? If we’re testing for some audible difference in a cable, amp, codec or whatever, then we’re testing that cable, amp, codec, we are NOT testing your preferences and we’re certainly not testing how your preferences evolve over time. Cables, amps, DACs, etc, do not have any perceptual or auditory learning, so citing papers on auditory learning supports your arguments how? This parrot is bloody DEAD! How many more times?

G

Nobody's claiming dacs, cables, or filters magically "evolve" new sonic properties—that’s your own strawman The gear stays exactly the same, obviously. But listeners aren't measurement devices; they have brains, memory, and perception—all things that adapt, shift, and change over extended listening periods. this isn't "narcissistic anthropomorphism," it's just basic human psychoacoustics.

You are of course right that when we test gear, we're testing gear—but since the entire point of audio gear is human listening, listener perception can't be conveniently ignored as "utterly irrelevant." . Short-term tests like abx are great for certain things, but they don't fully capture subtle perceptual differences or preferences that emerge (or disappear) over longer listening ssessions.

wave around your dead-parrot metaphor all you want, but repeating it doesn't actually erase the basic fact that human hearing and perception are more complicated than your simplified version. I believe it's time to let your parrot rest and actually consider how human perception works in real life, not just in quick tests.

 

[gregorio]

But listeners aren't measurement devices; they have brains, memory, and perception—all things that adapt, shift, and change over extended listening periods. this isn't "narcissistic anthropomorphism," it's just basic human psychoacoustics.

You’ve just proved it is narcissistic anthropomorphism because cables, DACs, amps etc. do not have any human psychoacoustics even any basic human psychoacoustics! You’ve know what anthropomorphism means right?

You are of course right that when we test gear, we're testing gear

Hallelujah brother, the parrot is no more!

—but since the entire point of audio gear is human listening, listener perception can't be conveniently ignored as "utterly irrelevant."

Oh dear, spoke too soon, the parrot apparently isn’t dead, just tired out after a long squawk. The “entire point” of a DAC is to convert digital data into an analogue signal, the clue is in the name. Can you guess the “entire point” of an amplifier, what about a codec? Here’s a tough one, because the clue isn’t in the name, what’s the “entire point” of a cable?

wave around your dead-parrot metaphor all you want, but repeating it doesn't actually erase the basic fact that human hearing and perception are more complicated than your simplified version.

Nope human hearing and perception could not possibly be any simpler as far as DACs, cables, amps, etc., are concerned, because they don’t have any!

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

You’ve just proved it is narcissistic anthropomorphism because cables, DACs, amps etc. do not have any human psychoacoustics even any basic human psychoacoustics! You’ve know what anthropomorphism means right?

Hallelujah brother, the parrot is no more!

Oh dear, spoke too soon, the parrot apparently isn’t dead, just tired out after a long squawk. The “entire point” of a DAC is to convert digital data into an analogue signal, the clue is in the name. Can you guess the “entire point” of an amplifier, what about a codec? Here’s a tough one, because the clue isn’t in the name, what’s the “entire point” of a cable?

Nope human hearing and perception could not possibly be any simpler as far as DACs, cables, amps, etc., are concerned, because they don’t have any!

G

golly- you're spending a lot of energy trying to dunk on arguments nobody actaully made. obviosuly cables, DACs, and amps don't have feelings, perception, or psychoacoustic adaptatons—no one's claiming that. "Anthropomorphism" would mean assigning human traits TO THE GEAR, which nobody (but you) is suggesting. Nice straw man tho.

But—shocker—the gear doesn't exist in isolation. You don't buy DACs or cables to frame them on your wall and admire their measured specs. You use them to listen to music. Human perception matters precisely becasue the "entire point" of audio gear, practically speaking, is human listening. Unless your cable or DAC has ears now, listener perceptoin is the ONLY thing that ultimately matters.

You can keep squawking "the parrot is dead!" all day long, but ignoring real-world psychoacoustics doesn’t make them magically disappear. Maybe try to argue aganst points people actually made next time? Would save everyone some effort. Plus you'd have more time to read up and learn more about this

Let me suggest:

• AES journal papers by Sean Olive, floyd Toole, Stanley Lipshitz, and John vanderkooy
  (Key AES studies on perception, blind testing, transient perception, and listner training.)
• "Temporal Resolution and Temporal Integration" (-chapter from Brian Moore’s book)
  (specifically explains how human hearing is sensitive to subtle timing and transient changes.)
• "Audibility of Temporal Smearing and Ringing in Audio Systems" by julian dunn
  (addresses directly the perceptual relvance of filter ringing.)

When you've done your homework, we can have a short quiz.

 

[gregorio]

obviosuly cables, DACs, and amps don't have feelings, perception, or psychoacoustic adaptatons—no one's claiming that.

but ignoring real-world psychoacoustics doesn’t make them magically disappear.

So cables etc don’t have psychoacoustic adaptations but ignoring real-world psychoacoustics (that cables, etc., don’t have) doesn’t make them magically disappear. How can we do anything but ignore “real-world psychoacoustics” when cables, DACs, etc., don’t have any “real-world psychoacoustics”?

But—shocker—the gear doesn't exist in isolation. You don't buy DACs or cables to frame them on your wall and admire their measured specs.

Sure, the gear doesn’t exist in isolation, a DAC is connected to an amp with a cable for example, an amp is connected to cables carrying a signal otherwise it doesn’t have anything to amplify, etc. However, none of this gear is connected to anything that has “feelings, perceptions, psychoacoustic adaptations or real-world psychoacoustics”! Unless you have an analogue or digital connector embedded in your skull?

Let me suggest:

Let you suggest some material I’ve already read that’s about something (psychoacoustics) that no audio gear has?
I haven’t read the Julian Dunn paper though, I’ve read quite a few papers by Dunn but don’t recall that one, a link please!
It’s also ironic that you’ve cited Vanderkooy and Lipshitz, as they demonstrated that what you asserted about DSD is wrong! Whoops lol

G

 

[bigshot]

Nobody's claiming dacs, cables, or filters magically "evolve" new sonic properties—that’s your own strawman The gear stays exactly the same, obviously. But listeners aren't measurement devices; they have brains, memory, and perception—all things that adapt, shift, and change over extended listening periods. this isn't "narcissistic anthropomorphism," it's just basic human psychoacoustics.

And all of that is purely subjective, applicable to no one else but yourself. There really isn’t much point discussing any of that with others, because their impression is likely to be different than yours. That’s why in Sound Science, we discuss fidelity that can be measured and thresholds of perception that can be defined instead of our impressions and feelings about gear.

 

[protoss]

Is it settle that metal is best for sound? Especially copper?
Yes or no and why?

 

[castleofargh]

Is it settle that metal is best for sound? Especially copper?
Yes or no and why?

Well, for electrical wiring and coils, wood is hard to use.

 

[sander99]

Is it settle that metal is best for sound?

Eeehh, metal is better than wood or plastic for conducting electrical audio signals, but wooden walls in your listening room may be better for the sound than metal walls.
[Edit: Ah, Castle, you just beat me by a few seconds.]

 

[protoss]

but wooden walls in your listening room may be better for the sound than metal walls.

So, i have like 5 HD800 , don't ask why...

I was thinking if copper sheet thin metal, thin layer place within the cups. Just covering the side walls.

 

[old tech]

So, i have like 5 HD800 , don't ask why...

I was thinking if copper sheet thin metal, thin layer place within the cups. Just covering the side walls.

What do you think that will achieve?

 

[protoss]

What do you think that will achieve?

Well, i am asking you guys lol! Probably its a million dollar question... Cant ask summit-fi they are close to being fried like a chicken.

I am guessing something>? reduce EMI? probably no point? might disrupt the drivers? I am assuming increase shielding? but what's the point correct?

I was always thinking, it should in theory enhance the sound? stronger bass<? Maybe more density involve? It should increase the soundstage even higher? Because copper should reduce resonance and this in return will give us a more pin-point soundstage that should in return make it sound larger?

any takers?

 

[Luckyleo]

You’ve just proved it is narcissistic anthropomorphism because cables, DACs, amps etc. do not have any human psychoacoustics even any basic human psychoacoustics! You’ve know what anthropomorphism means right?

Hallelujah brother, the parrot is no more!

Oh dear, spoke too soon, the parrot apparently isn’t dead, just tired out after a long squawk. The “entire point” of a DAC is to convert digital data into an analogue signal, the clue is in the name. Can you guess the “entire point” of an amplifier, what about a codec? Here’s a tough one, because the clue isn’t in the name, what’s the “entire point” of a cable?

Nope human hearing and perception could not possibly be any simpler as far as DACs, cables, amps, etc., are concerned, because they don’t have any!

G

I went back 15 years ago to the start of the thread. Only read the first few pages, but boy-o-boy they were certainly more pleasant and polite. How times have changed......