Testing audiophile claims and myths

[peskypesky]

Most resistance to controlled testing is because they know what a fair test would reveal and they don’t want to admit it.

All resistance to controlled testing is because they know what a fair test would reveal and they don’t want to admit it.

 

[bigshot]

Hey all, I am wondering if using a splitter for testing 2 cables at once is a viable option to test if a cable make a difference to sound. Has anyone done it here?

I've split headphone cables. No problem.

Ludwig meet Johann, Johann meet Ludwig. Now we've all been introduced!

 

[castleofargh]

Hey all, I am wondering if using a splitter for testing 2 cables at once is a viable option to test if a cable make a difference to sound. Has anyone done it here?

It really depends on what you're testing and how. Having an extra cable going nowhere usually wouldn't matter to us. But having an extra circuit in parallel isn't necessarily the same story. If the extra loop goes into 5 to 10kohm, that again shouldn't have much influence, but it would be good to be sure before drawing conclusions on a test we couldn't control properly.

If you test very low impedance cables, you have to keep in mind that the impedance increase happens mostly in the plugs and at the contact areas. So adding more contacts with a splitter or ideally a switch, that could make a significant difference(I’m thinking mostly about IEM cables here).

In general, anytime you're changing the conditions in your listening experiment, it would be good to measure a few stuff before and after to confirm that you're not creating your own problem with the listening test. If you know how to, your could record what comes out with and without the splitter, and try to abx that(test the test) It's not perfect, but it would be reassuring for a listening test if you couldn't tell the difference with and without the extra setup.
That still requires to be able to record some output after the next gear in the chain, and to be able to cut the recorded samples so they are aligned for the abx. It’s already more than what most members of my family can do.

 

[Mehran]

It really depends on what you're testing and how. Having an extra cable going nowhere usually wouldn't matter to us. But having an extra circuit in parallel isn't necessarily the same story. If the extra loop goes into 5 to 10kohm, that again shouldn't have much influence, but it would be good to be sure before drawing conclusions on a test we couldn't control properly.

If you test very low impedance cables, you have to keep in mind that the impedance increase happens mostly in the plugs and at the contact areas. So adding more contacts with a splitter or ideally a switch, that could make a significant difference(I’m thinking mostly about IEM cables here).

In general, anytime you're changing the conditions in your listening experiment, it would be good to measure a few stuff before and after to confirm that you're not creating your own problem with the listening test. If you know how to, your could record what comes out with and without the splitter, and try to abx that(test the test) It's not perfect, but it would be reassuring for a listening test if you couldn't tell the difference with and without the extra setup.
That still requires to be able to record some output after the next gear in the chain, and to be able to cut the recorded samples so they are aligned for the abx. It’s already more than what most members of my family can do.

Thanks for the thorough and very technical response. For me anyway . It's beyond my technical ability/knowledge and frankly interest to go into it. All I can gather is that I can hear a difference in the two cables but for the wrong reasons. So it's not viable for me. Thanks

 

[bigshot]

Try it and see if it works. Splitting headphones shouldn’t be a problem.

 

[sonitus mirus]

All resistance to controlled testing is because they know what a fair test would reveal and they don’t want to admit it.

I think most people that refuse to accept controlled testing as being reliable are simply having a hard time coming to grips with what can be an astonishing revelation, and there are plenty of pseudo-plausible excuses available to support their irrational assumptions.

 

[peskypesky]

I think most people that refuse to accept controlled testing as being reliable are simply having a hard time coming to grips with what can be an astonishing revelation, and there are plenty of pseudo-plausible excuses available to support their irrational assumptions.

Yes. It's like learning that a penny will fall from a tower at the same rate as a cannonball. Or that the earth is not flat. Or that light is both a wave and a particle.

 

[Arthur Weston]

I’ve been tested to have higher than normal hearing frequency range. This begs question about preference and taste, like fine wines. Do some “taste more” in sound?

 

[bigshot]

I’ve been tested to have higher than normal hearing frequency range.

That is great if you want to hear the squeal in bad ballasts in fluorescent lights and CRT TVs. But those frequencies aren't audible in music. Your "refined" hearing is bogus.

 

[Arthur Weston]

That is great if you want to hear the squeal in bad ballasts in fluorescent lights and CRT TVs. But those frequencies aren't audible in music. Your "refined" hearing is bogus.

So tell me, is there “refined” taste in food/wine? What’s the science there? $10,000 bottle vs $5 bottle argument.

It’s proven that animals have much better hearing than humans and even some humans have better hearing than other humans.

 

[bigshot]

Refined taste in wine is discernment in analysis of the flavor. It doesn’t mean they have a superhuman tongue. You hear like a human, just like the rest of us. If you want to convince us of your discernment, talk about your analysis of great music. Not your ability to hear super audible frequencies that you can’t hear and don’t matter anyway.

 

[Arthur Weston]

Refined taste in wine is discernment in analysis of the flavor. It doesn’t mean they have a superhuman tongue. You hear like a human, just like the rest of us. If you want to convince us of your discernment, talk about your analysis of great music. Not your ability to hear super audible frequencies that you can’t hear and don’t matter anyway.

I’m certainly not saying i’m better than anyone here and that I know more because I can hear more and have experienced more than anyone else.

I took an exam that was duplicated several times by an audiologist during a medical physical exam to get my hearing tested for health reasons. What happened is that could still hear the testing of of tones, or beeps beyond the normal cutoff range. This happened about 3 beeps beyond their normal cutoff and because this situation occurs less frequently, they tested more than once and concluded my hearing was well above average. I suppose I have “sensitive” hearing.

When it comes to music, I am passionately obsessed with high quality reproduction. I can not only pick up on tiniest of details in treble, but feel the thumping of the lowest lows. As far as midrange is concerned, I appreciate tight and clean mids.

 

[castleofargh]

I’ve been tested to have higher than normal hearing frequency range. This begs question about preference and taste, like fine wines. Do some “taste more” in sound?

Of course. Like pretty much anything else, we all have different hearing, vision, ideas, running speed... The norm is never more than an averaging of statistics. But does that have actual impact on personal taste? I would guess no more than everything else. Taste in music seems to be pretty deeply rooted in what we got exposed to as kids and apparently even more so, as teenagers(some paper suggested as much based on stats from streaming websites).
Then, the frequency range is only one variable and we all get somewhat different frequency responses, timing, etc because of the shape/size of our head, our age, heavy blows, some disease we got and some drugs we took for them, etc).
Also, and that's probably relevant: Music is not made for dolphins by dolphins.



A usual listening test checks up to 8kHz, it's very possible to do better than average and go above the top line. It means you still notice the tone at quieter amplitude than most. I got that myself in the upper range most of my life, at least I did before I went to drive old and very noisy trains for a few months :'(. Now I'm your average 45 year old guy with "good" average hearing. I honestly haven't noticed a change in my experience of music or my taste around that fairly short period of ear destroying job. And while I did notice that it was goodby 17kHz and above at my listening levels when I bothered testing for that with appropriate gear, I already was spending most of my listening time on the go with IEMs that rolled off massively between 10 and 14kHz. So at least in my case, I always had other priorities than frequency extension.

But I did spend my younger years getting mightily bothered by high freqs noises of all kinds that nobody else was noticing. And just in general, by people watching TV and listening to music loud enough that I wanted to go somewhere else. That I do remember clearly. And I've always disliked cymbals and real life violin sounds from up close. I still feel that way now that I can't hear a good deal of the upper range where they can go. But is it because my brain has declared that I would forever dislike those? Or is it because what I dislike has little to do with 17kHz and above in those instruments? I honestly have no idea.

 

[KeithPhantom]

I’ve been tested to have higher than normal hearing frequency range.

I’ve got a question for you: can you help me hear the filter effects of a DAC at about 23 kHz when 44,100 S/s? I would like to know how it sounds up there.

 

[old tech]

I’m certainly not saying i’m better than anyone here and that I know more because I can hear more and have experienced more than anyone else.

I took an exam that was duplicated several times by an audiologist during a medical physical exam to get my hearing tested for health reasons. What happened is that could still hear the testing of of tones, or beeps beyond the normal cutoff range. This happened about 3 beeps beyond their normal cutoff and because this situation occurs less frequently, they tested more than once and concluded my hearing was well above average. I suppose I have “sensitive” hearing.

When it comes to music, I am passionately obsessed with high quality reproduction. I can not only pick up on tiniest of details in treble, but feel the thumping of the lowest lows. As far as midrange is concerned, I appreciate tight and clean mids.

So what is your age and what was your frequency response curve? Like all human senses, hearing follows a bell distribution curve among the population. It is generally accepted that a healthy young adult can hear a range of frequencies between 20hz and 20khz. Some young adults can hear frequencies below 20hz and over 20khz. They are the exceptions or outliers that can hear up to 23khz or thereabouts. But as far as human hearing health goes it doesn't matter because our hearing is less sensitive outside the midrange and the real world is not test tones. In other words, masking effects of frequencies where our ears are most sensitive would swamp these outlier attributes.

Audiologist tests typically cut off around 10 to 12 khz because that is all that matters for health reasons. The beeps you may have heard in that test are unlikely to be anywhere near 20khz.The main reason for these tests are for peaks and drops within the relevant range - hence the question what was your frequency response curve because that would tell a more accurate story about the health of your ears.