Testing audiophile claims and myths

[Steve999]

Go ask Alice.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

I trust the study was done well. But I gotta have 40 hertz (about the lowest note on a double-bass or an electric bass) to feel like I am getting solid sound reproduction of Western music, pop, jazz, classical or otherwise. Except for Captain Beefheart. I wonder if people would miss the solid impact of those low notes now more than they would have in 2006. My hypothesis is that they would after 12 more years of high impact low bass in music in pop culture--people would find 40 hertz pretty desirable and musical and for some even crucial. When we were spinning records we were bottoming out at what, 50 or 60 hertz even with the best gear? And then you went to a concert and you could feel the 40 hz impact in your chest. Or at least I did.

Otherwise, points well-taken and good references.

I couldn't care less about the high frequency argument. Give me 15 kHz and then count me out. ; ) And based on playing with EQ 12 kHz or 13 kHz would probably do for me as far as meaningful musical stuff in the cymbals and drums, etc. Beyond that I want to see proof of concept, and I haven't.

Study? What study? One was a class project, a report, at Miami University (Miami, Ohio) and the other is a popular-science book. But I agree, they are nice references-
For your setup, you choose, obviously. But let others make their own choices, based on their priorities, without scorn. If you can't care less about the high-frequency argument, why are you arguing about it?
By the way, the Levitin book says "on average". That says nothing about those who are different from average. Do you happen to be 176.1cm (5' 9 1/3") tall? If not, you are not average height.

 

[Steve999]

Study? What study? One was a class project, a report, at Miami University (Miami, Ohio) and the other is a popular-science book. But I agree, they are nice references-
For your setup, you choose, obviously. But let others make their own choices, based on their priorities, without scorn. If you can't care less about the high-frequency argument, why are you arguing about it?
By the way, the Levitin book says "on average". That says nothing about those who are different from average. Do you happen to be 176.1cm (5' 9 1/3") tall? If not, you are not average height.

Is a class project followed by a report at a University not a study? Oh, I'm sorry.

I have no scorn. I have no dog in this fight. I like you guys. Get it?

 

[analogsurviver]

I trust the study was done well. But I gotta have 40 hertz (about the lowest note on a double-bass or an electric bass) to feel like I am getting solid sound reproduction of Western music, pop, jazz, classical or otherwise. Except for Captain Beefheart. I wonder if people would miss the solid impact of those low notes now more than they would have in 2006. My hypothesis is that they would after 12 more years of high impact low bass in music in pop culture--people would find 40 hertz pretty desirable and musical and for some even crucial. When we were spinning records we were bottoming out at what, 50 or 60 hertz even with the best gear? And then you went to a concert and you could feel the 40 hz impact in your chest. Or at least I did.

Otherwise, points well-taken and good references.

I couldn't care less about the high frequency argument. Give me 15 kHz and then count me out. ; ) And based on playing with EQ 12 kHz or 13 kHz would probably do for me as far as meaningful musical stuff in the cymbals and drums, etc. Beyond that I want to see proof of concept, and I haven't.

Oh dear... want a proof of the concept regarding EQing of ( high ) frequencies ?

First of all, you HAVE TO understand it is not only about the relative level of the any respective frequency (band) - it also has to do with PHASE.

Enter one of the best analog parametric EQs ever made : Technics SH-9010 https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/sh-9010.shtml
( AND, if anyone might start bitching the short description on the initial page of hifiengine says response is only from 20 Hz to 20 khz - DON'T MONKEY AROUND BUT READ THE MANUAL )

The super shaky foundations, upon which all of the reasoning by the supporters of band limited and mainly amplitude only related "stereo" ( aka multimiking ) is based , get shattered into smitherins the moment one understands how PROPER equalization ( where phase is more important than amplitude ) actually works - and, ultimately, sounds.

To get the phase ( important for imaging ) right, even well within the 20-20k band, one has sometimes resort to adjusting the PARAMETRIC equalizer for the just combination of frequency, Q and amplitude settings of each of the "sliders" - and THEN one fully gets the idea WHY the central frequency of the SH-9010 can be set to the "inaudible" 48 kHz ! Needless to say - SH-9010 will allow for a much more precise core frequencies EQ than possible with graphiuc equalizers - but, unfortunately, parametric EQ is a much more complicated circuit than graphic, resulting in less bands for the same money. SH-9010 has only 5 bands - enough for most, but not all cases.

Just HOW difficult nut to crack listings of equalizers even on dedicated pages such as hifiengine is, is this sterling example of getting it 101% WRONG :

https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/sh-9090.shtml

where the world's best ever parametric 10 band equalizer is listed as graphic ... - here, a better presentation of this beauty :

http://www.thevintageknob.org/technics-SH-9090P.html

I can only drool about it - or, to be precise, about THEM - SH-9090 is a MONO unit. As it is exceedingly rare and has cost tons of money in anyone's currency when new ( 40 years ago ) - let alone properly functioning sample(s) today. The going price for a functioning pair is - IF you are lucky - starting at 3 k, with average being around 5K.

But for sure you aren't going to see me selling my SH-9010 !!!

 

[james444]

You bring up an interesting question....

If it were to turn out that a significant number of people can percieve ultrasonic frequencies at concerts due to bone conduction...
Then it could be asserted that both almost all current recordings, and all air-conduction speakers and headphones, are inaccurate...
And ONLY high resolution recordings played on bone conduction headphones are actually accurate.

Then we can start an interesting semantic argument as to whether they count as "audio reproduction" or "multimedia reproduction".

Just for the record, I'm not advocating that ultrasonic frequencies have any practical merit in audio reproduction. But there seems to be some scientific evidence that they can be perceived / "heard" via bone conduction.

Now, I'm primarily an IEM listener and I know about occlusion effects, which mainly work via bone conduction. So I'm not entirely ruling out the possibility that (a small) part of of auditory perception may work via bone conduction... at least with IEMs.

 

[Steve999]

Oh dear... want a proof of the concept regarding EQing of ( high ) frequencies ?

First of all, you HAVE TO understand it is not only about the relative level of the any respective frequency (band) - it also has to do with PHASE.

Enter one of the best analog parametric EQs ever made : Technics SH-9020 https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/sh-9010.shtml
( AND, if anyone might start bitching the short description on the initial page of hifiengine says response is only from 20 Hz to 20 khz - DON'T MONKEY AROUND BUT READ THE MANUAL )

The super shaky foundations, upon which all of the reasoning by the supporters of band limited and mainly amplitude only related "stereo" ( aka multimiking ) is based , get shattered into smitherins the moment one understands how PROPER equalization ( where phase is more important than amplitude ) actually works - and, ultimately, sounds.

To get the phase ( important for imaging ) right, even well within the 20-20k band, one has sometimes resort to adjusting the PARAMETRIC equalizer for the just combination of frequency, Q and amplitude settings of each of the "sliders" - and THEN one fully gets the idea WHY the central frequency of the SH-9010 can be set to the "inaudible" 48 kHz ! Needless to say - SH-9010 will allow for a much more precise core frequencies EQ than possible with graphiuc equalizers - but, unfortunately, parametric EQ is a much more complicated circuit than graphic, resulting in less bands for the same money. SH-9010 has only 5 bands - enough for most, but not all cases.

Just HOW difficult nut to crack listings of equalizers even on dedicated pages such as hifiengine is, is this sterling example of getting it 101% WRONG :

https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/sh-9090.shtml

where the world's best ever parametric 10 band equalizer is listed as graphic ... - here, a better presentation of this beauty :

http://www.thevintageknob.org/technics-SH-9090P.html

I can only drool about it - or, to be precise, about THEM - SH-9090 is a MONO unit. As it is exceedingly rare and has cost tons of money in anyone's currency when new ( 40 years ago ) - let alone properly functioning sample(s) today. The going price for a functioning pair is - IF you are lucky - starting at 3 k, with average being around 5K.

But for sure you aren't going to see me selling my SH-9010 !!!

Thanks. I gotta get some sleep. It's 4 AM for me this time. I'll reply tomorrow. : )

 

[SoundAndMotion]

Out of curiosity: do you remember hearing the flyback on CRT TVs? No one mistakes it for music, but many could easily hear it. To me, it didn't feel like pressure, and I could certainly detect the high pitch. I would call it a tone or sound. It was 15734 for NTSC and 15625 for PAL.
And remember, as Levitin points out in his book, when you look at the the frequencies of notes, those are the fundamentals. What makes musical instruments sound different from one another are the harmonics, the timbre. As others have already posted:
There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz coming from musical instruments.
That doesn't mean that "life" is important to you (or me), but for some it may be.

 

[analogsurviver]

First I think @bigshot was trying to bust on someone other than you.

Second, as far as vomitting or feeling really good after a music recording with ultrasonics, because of the ultrasonics. . :

let's get real. . .

NOT
GONNA
HAPPEN.

Errr... I beg to differ. I concur no one is going to vomit during ANY reasonable concert - even if the music is strictly synthesizer made.

On the other side, rarely - if at all - I can remember a sad face after a decent harpsichord recital. People are normally like - and some ( not all ) of the harpsichords have TONS of ultrasound. Harpsichord is a quiet instrument to begin with - and is therefore usually played in smaller venues, fit for chamber music. Where the closest sitting listeners can be within 5 metres away from the instrument, where the air filtering still can not filter ultrasound out below perceptibility..

Whatever the amount of ultrasonics in this case, they are UPLIFTING - not detrimental.

 

[JRG1990]

I think as it was pointed out a few pages back to even perceive the ultrasonics they have to be a at a really high spl a spl level you wouldn't listen to music at because your ear drums would explode, ultrasonic content is inaudible and un perceivable in music playback.

 

[gregorio]

Could you tell us a little about your scientific background? What field(s)? Any research and peer-reviewed papers? Perhaps I'm underestimating your background ...

I worked for 6 years as a senior lecturer and course designer at a British university, teaching the science (and art) of audio engineering and music technology to degree students. During all that time I worked closely with the neuroscience department and one of the top neuroscientists in the UK, consulting on several research projects. I'm also a certified expert for the most widely used professional audio editing/DAW software, have been a guest lecturer in audio engineering/recording in the USA, Japan and various European countries and have consulted for the UK government. Additionally, I believe you're aware that I've worked in various world class recording studios with numerous world class musicians and engineers for nearly 30 years and at many of the world's most renown concert venues.

Now what about you, Perhaps I'm underestimating your background?

However, when I watched The Martian, there were several very bright sunny scenes, yet I never felt that warmth.
(That's because TVs and video cameras fail to accurately record or reproduce the invisible infrared light frequencies that convey a sense of warmth.)

That's brings us back full circle to what I suggested many pages ago in response to similar nonsense: How about ultraviolet TV, so we could get a suntan while watching Baywatch? I'm sure there are loads of audiophiles who want the "real experience" of melanoma from watching their TV?

[1] I've read several tests where the aggregate results were analyzed and failed to show that a statistically significant number of people could hear a difference...
Yet the detailed notes then proceeded to note that two or three of the participants were in fact able to tell which was whcih with far above statistically significant results.
[2] However, because the test was only looking for statistical results, they failed to follow up by further testing those individuals.
[3] And, point blank, the reason for that is mainly that nobody has been willing to come up with the money to finance thorough, complete, properly scaled, and well controlled tests...

1. Really? ... How do you achieve "far above" 100%? You seem unaware of the fact that even a perfect 100% score can in fact be "pure chance" as entirely predicted by and consistent with statistics and does NOT indicate "people could hear a difference". So "in fact" yet another of your assertions is FALSE.

2. So you've got absolutely no evidence to support your assertion that "participants were in fact able to tell which is which" ... how surprising!

3. Despite you stating no one should use absolutes we've had an "in fact" absolute assertion form you and now a "point blank" absolute assertion. I can only assume you believe that "no one" doesn't include you? And, if it's not bad enough that you're doing the exact opposite of what you advised others, your absolute assertions are in fact FALSE anyway! Jeez, round and round we go.

[1] That part is not difficult...
[2] Many instruments seem to have harmonics that extend well past 50 kHz...
[3] And there are also quite a few microphones whose response extends that high...
[4] There are even one or two microphones that can record frequencies as high as 1 mHz in air....
[4a] This company seems to offer several microphones whose response extends well past 100 kHz (their CM16 model seems to be rated to 250 khz.) https://www.avisoft.com/usg/microphones.htm

1. Correct, it's "not difficult", in practise it's impossible, unless of course one wanted to get laughed at and fired.
2. And many instruments do not. AND, even those that do only produce it in tiny amounts and can only be recorded at extremely close range. Do you typically sit with your ears just an inch from a snare drum? If so, what make of hearing aids do you now have to use or do you just rely on lip-reading?
3. No there aren't, there's very few music mics whose response extend that high.
4. No there aren't, there's not a single music mic that gets anywhere near that high.
4a. You seem to have inadvertently missed the fact this is a mic designed for "Investigating Animal Acoustic Communication", NOT for recording music! You seem to consistently and continually "inadvertently miss" a great deal and what are the odds that all these "inadvertent" mistakes ALWAYS seem to support your agenda? Maybe that's why you like using astronomical analogies?

As you like astronomical analogies: We can propel a space craft to well over 17,000mph with solid fuel rockets, therefore all cars can travel at over 17,000mph. Are there ANY cars that can travel at over 17,000mph? Is this not a ridiculous and fallacious assertion? Even though it's entirely possible to achieve, there are no solid fuel rocket powered consumer cars because it's so highly undesirable in practice .... but why let that fact get in the way of a perfectly good bunch of nonsense?

I've learned a lot too, but for me, the dogmatic, adversarial, and counterproductive attitude of some people in Sound Science is a real downer.

Then why do you do it? Why, when you're clearly lacking basic knowledge, do you employ your dogmatic, adversarial, counterproductive and self-contradictory attitude and ignore your own advice to learn from experts? And why do you ignore every question which points this out? What is the only logical conclusion from this attitude?

OK, this TOTALLY unsupported and unproven assertion that ultrasonic frequencies from acoustic instruments fade away if you sit more than a few feet away from them has to stop - right here, right now.

Sure, the inverse square law isn't a law, it "TOTALLY" doesn't even exist. High freq air absorption also doesn't exist, it was just invented by people who hate vinyl. Thermal noise increasing with frequency is just another Nyquist lie and the proven math is all wrong AND, all the audience always sits "no more than a few feet away from" say a drumkit at a live gig or an orchestra.

It is completely supported and proven. Air absorption becomes a bigger problem the higher the frequency, that we fight every day. Large halls have large amounts of high frequency absorption with little to no reflection to reinforce them. By the time you get to a stadium size you are doing great to still have 8k. In recording even drum overheads for pop I'm at least 2m away it is likely that I don't even use them in a mix, most of it is the room mics much farther away. Classical I don't think I have even been closer than 10-15 m. My boom alone is at least 4 meters.

Yep, that's not going to work here. I've already tried it, I've even given the facts and figures. They care only about their agenda, of re-stating ad infinitum what they believe might be possible and what has not been proven to be impossible, completely disregarding any of the actual realities or practicalities of how recordings are actually made or even that what they assert as possible would in practice cause hearing damage if they tried it, which they won't anyway. They'll go to extreme lengths and employ the most ridiculous of analogies and falsehoods. Arguing for example that it's entirely possible to send a man to a star 4 light YEARS away, when the best we've actually managed so far is about one and a half light SECONDS! Honestly, you're wasting your time providing recording realities/practicalities, they'll just ignore you and invent recording scenarios which NEVER exist to "prove"/support their agenda.

Who do you think "knows more about what's really audible"?
- an audiologist
- a neuro-physiologist who specializes in human hearing
- a concert pianist
- a recording engineer

Who do YOU think "knows more about what's really audible" with say a piano recording?
- an audiologist
- a neuro-physiologist who specialises in human hearing
- a concert pianist
- a recording engineer
- an audiophile
- a salesman selling snake oil to audiophiles

The first four are all in general agreement, based on both the science and the factual, practical realities of performing and recording music. The last two however ....

G

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

I am still in absolute awe of this place and the folks who effectively make it work....especially when it again and again turns into the Sound Philosophy forum.

Let me make a friendly suggestion to the outsider peeping in:
Yup I know this thread is like walking into the proverbial nerd stronghold with numbers and axis up the wazoo - stuff you're never ever going to get your head around..properly.
So what's what?? Who to trust?
'I know - I freckin' KNOW what I heard when I bought that Andalusian Airsplitter! The change in sq was absurd!!'
Well get a hold of a friend - if you can get one with some basic skills inside this field, like I did. I actually have two, one of which was a flaming audiphile before we ventured down the path of listening to gear without actually seeing what's playing.
Set up a simple blindtest just to see what you prefer.
The volume matching thing is quite real and is alpha omega if you want a genuine result (my friend proved this in a sly backhanded manner to me, where he made my Aune x1 louder than the Benchmark2 we were testing...and I preferred the Aune hands down because of added 'presence', 'stage' and 'nuances' (hoho)).

All of this can be done fairly simple yet there are so few willing to try. Do yourself and your wallet a favour and test this for yourself. We could all be full of horsemanure for all you know!

 

[Phronesis]

I am still in absolute awe of this place and the folks who effectively make it work....especially when it again and again turns into the Sound Philosophy forum.

Let me make a friendly suggestion to the outsider peeping in:
Yup I know this thread is like walking into the proverbial nerd stronghold with numbers and axis up the wazoo - stuff you're never ever going to get your head around..properly.
So what's what?? Who to trust?
'I know - I freckin' KNOW what I heard when I bought that Andalusian Airsplitter! The change in sq was absurd!!'
Well get a hold of a friend - if you can get one with some basic skills inside this field, like I did. I actually have two, one of which was a flaming audiphile before we ventured down the path of listening to gear without actually seeing what's playing.
Set up a simple blindtest just to see what you prefer.
The volume matching thing is quite real and is alpha omega if you want a genuine result (my friend proved this in a sly backhanded manner to me, where he made my Aune x1 louder than the Benchmark2 we were testing...and I preferred the Aune hands down because of added 'presence', 'stage' and 'nuances' (hoho)).

All of this can be done fairly simple yet there are so few willing to try. Do yourself and your wallet a favour and test this for yourself. We could all be full of horsemanure for all you know!

Good advice. Also important for people to match music segments and do the switching quickly, so you can put the same content back to back and lessen the effect of fading auditory memory. I’m not convinced that such testing can rule out the possibility of subtle differences which might be experienced during normal listening yet missed in the tests, but I’m pretty confident that such testing can reliably demonstrate that night and day differences aren’t really there (assuming that they’re not). There’s nothing more convincing than doing this testing for yourself, and DO NOT assume that the results will be same as what you perceive in normal listening. Your perception isn’t the precise, accurate, and consistent instrument you think it is. It’s just not.

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

Good advice. Also important for people to match music segments and do the switching quickly, so you can put the same content back to back and lessen the effect of fading auditory memory. I’m not convinced that such testing can rule out the possibility of subtle differences which might be experienced during normal listening yet missed in the tests, but I’m pretty confident that such testing can reliably demonstrate that night and day differences aren’t really there (assuming that they’re not). There’s nothing more convincing than doing this testing for yourself, and DO NOT assume that the results will be same as what you perceive in normal listening. Your perception isn’t the precise, accurate, and consistent instrument you think it is. It’s just not.

I think I am getting a handle of your style of debate...and it quite frankly seems a tad disingenuous. Both you and Keith agree and agree with the parts you can't refute...and then you round off with a snide 'what if' scenario in order to keep the thread injected with just an ounce of doubt.
The above post is a perfect illustrator of this. We've talked about this thing before and you insist on undermining the test by making a destinction between "normal listening" and listening without sight involved.
I would make the case that they are the same..unless you vehemently fight the test with every fibre of your body. Most folks I know close their eyes when they REALLY listen to music. They weed out any superfluous distractions so as they can focus entirely on the magnificence that is patterned sound.
Furthermore, and as has been told to you previously on a number of occasions, you are free to test the way you want to as long as you don't look at the merchandise ie take as loooooong as you want - use a day, a weekend whathaveyou in order to satisfy your curiosity.

 

[Phronesis]

I worked for 6 years as a senior lecturer and course designer at a British university, teaching the science (and art) of audio engineering and music technology to degree students. During all that time I worked closely with the neuroscience department and one of the top neuroscientists in the UK, consulting on several research projects. I'm also a certified expert for the most widely used professional audio editing/DAW software, have been a guest lecturer in audio engineering/recording in the USA, Japan and various European countries and have consulted for the UK government. Additionally, I believe you're aware that I've worked in various world class recording studios with numerous world class musicians and engineers for nearly 30 years and at many of the world's most renown concert venues.

Now what about you, Perhaps I'm underestimating your background?

Thanks, I remember you mentioning most of that a while back. The neuroscience part is interesting, and I wish you'd talk more about perception stuff in your posts. What I was really wondering though is whether you've had scientific or engineering education, and done research in these areas published in peer-reviewed journals?

As I mentioned a while back, I'm a (licensed professional) engineer and have been in the field for three decades (not audio). Back in high school, I was fortunate to be able to take three years of analogue and digital electronics, and designed and built an amp for a project; it was so much electronics that I got my fill of it, and decided to go into a different area of engineering, instead of my original plan to go into electrical engineering and focus on audio/music stuff. I also did live sound for a friend's band, and had a small home studio after college. In more recent years, I've developed an engineering subspecialty in applying psychology and other social sciences to engineering practice, focusing on preventing engineering failures, so I've spent a lot of time looking into things like perception, memory, cognitive biases, and how we make judgments and decisions. I've done research on technical and the applied social science stuff, published peer-reviewed papers, and made a lot of conference presentations. I got back into listening to music once I discovered Spotify and Tidal, and find that I mostly listen using headphones, so I found head-fi, and then wandered into Sound Science for obvious reasons. And of course, like most of us here, I've done a lot of reading about science topics because I find it interesting.

I'd be interested in knowing a bit about the backgrounds of some of the other Sound Science regulars, for those willing to share.

 

[Indiana]

I think I am getting a handle of your style of debate...and it quite frankly seems a tad disingenuous. Both you and Keith agree and agree with the parts you can't refute...and then you round off with a snide 'what if' scenario in order to keep the thread injected with just an ounce of doubt.

My impression is more something like this "I agree there are no unicorns but what about fairies?"