[upstateguy]

I get that, but if you limit the scope of the forum to objective stuff (physics and technology) and ignore subjective aspects, you have a limited definition of sound science, and issues of psychoacoustics, blind testing, etc. have no relevance. From what I've seen so far, the discussions aren't by any means limited to objective aspects.

LOL! First time I ever heard someone refer to blind testing as a subjective aspect.

Btw, that's a very interesting sentence you wrote. See how it reads if we switch subjective and objective.

If you limit the scope of the forum to subjective stuff (hearsay and anecdotes) and ignore objective aspects (physics, technology and science), you have a limited definition of sound ......

 

[Phronesis]

LOL! First time I ever heard someone refer to blind testing as a subjective aspect.

Blind testing involves listeners, hence the subjective aspect. Isn't the question whether people can *hear* certain objective differences?

 

[sonitus mirus]

"Peanuts are NOT poisonous"; tell that to my buddy who's allergic to peanuts.
"All speaker wires sound the same"; except that, if you attach a set of Vampire Wires to a Threshold 400b amplifier, it will blow its fuse.
It's more accurate to say: "Peanuts are healthy for most people, except for the few who happen to be allergic to them".
And to say: "Most normal modern amplifiers don't sound any different with different speaker cables - unless there's something really odd about the cables".

Maybe in follow-up responses some of the minutiae is omitted, but generally there is an attempt to claim that in most normal situations, barring some obvious and some not so obvious problems, speaker wires sound the same.

Unless a person has some medical condition or related food allergy, peanuts are typically safe for humans to consume, and would not be generally categorized as a poison. Yet, you would have some talking about speaker wire as if everyone was at least a little bit allergic to peanuts, and peanuts impact everyone in a different way, based on the particular person that eats them. Some peanuts are not as poisonous as others. Now we have folks conflating peanut allergies across the board to everyone, and now we need to be aware of where we get our peanuts because no peanut is the same.

Nobody seems to be making the claim that every single DAC, amp, and interconnect are exactly the same in every single measurable parameter. That also does not mean that a few people can hear differences with some Hugo DAC and a cheap Audioengine DAC. This is where direct evidence would be needed to be convincing. Referring back to slight variances between certain DACs under some pathological situations to pave the way for proof that all DACs can sound different to one another is not correct.

 

[analogsurviver]

As far as I'm concerned if timing is good enough to create a perfect 20kHz tone, it's more than good enough to reproduce the fastest transient in music... by several magnitudes.

Unfortunately, it is not. There are tons of instruments with overtones way past 20 kHz, which can be sensed by humans - even if we do not hear them with our ears as pure sine waves, they are perceived in other ways. Some people are more sensitive to this, some less, some not at all - but stating that response above 20k does not matter is just plain wrong.

PCM itself is not NEARLY as perfect and foolproof with regards to timing as its proponents would like us to believe. I will have to do quite some more testing in order to isolate just what causes the trouble - but, if and when that defect does show up, it IS directly proportional to the sampling rate. Upsampling from 44.1 to higher frequency does not, of course, magically add missing information above 22050 Hz - but it DOES improve the mentioned trouble, one that should not have been there in the first place and/or should have not been allowed to develop later "somewhere" from the microphones to the final output of one's speakers or headphones.

DSD is inherently free from this defect that can and does occur at least sometimes with PCM - and may be the primary reason as to why I prefer it - BY FAR - to any PCM.

 

[KeithEmo]

I just wanted to chime in here with a BIG THUMBS UP for BigShot.

I just wanted to make it clear that I absolutely agree with what BigShot is trying to do.
There is a massive amount of misinformation floating around the audiophile world.
It ranges from superstition, to what I would term pseudo-science, to outright snake oil, often created strictly to sell useless products.
I also understand that many audiophiles either aren't willing, aren't able to, or just plain aren't interested enough, to absorb all of the sometimes annoying details.

However, my science background leads me to be very leery of making or accepting general statements unless they are incredibly well substantiated.

So, for example, I consider the "well substantiated fact" that "humans hear from 20 Hz to 20 kHz when tested using steady state sine waves" to be well substantiated - but limited.
And, for most combinations of preamps and interconnect cables, there won't be an audible difference - but for certain few combinations the difference are both audible and measurable.
But, as far as I'm concerned, I'll agree that nobody has conducted any studies to determine the audibility of differences between DACs, but anecdotally I'm quite convinced I can.
On that last one, while I am personally convinced that I hear differences, at least between some DACs, I'm not making and specific claims on that subject.
However, I'm equally convinced that a lot of people probably won't hear a difference, and would never suggest that someone buy a specific DAC because of what I claim to hear.

I've changed the way I think about the banishment. I see us as the "outside" and the rest of HeadFi as being "in a box". When you limit what can be discussed, you limit what you can do.

Also, I want to make it clear that I don't get angry with people here. I just don't have the patience for tortured logic like "we can't know everything so we can't know anything", so at some point I won't entertain discussions like that any more. I don't waste my time adding footnotes to everything I say because everything I talk about is in relation to listening to recorded music in the home. That is the context we are discussing- home audio. Sometimes people interpret the science aspect to mean that they have to split atoms and consider things that can't be heard in a normal home music listening environment. I'm too busy improving audible sound to spend my time on thinking about theoretical sound. It isn't that I'm not aware of this stuff. I just don't care about it because it has no use to me.

A lot of people wander in here from the inside of HeadFi. Perhaps they believed the subjective poetry they heard in there and got burned buying a high end DAC or fancy cable that didn't make any real difference. When they hear objective opinions for the first time, I think it's important to keep your eye on the prize. Doubling down on details just muddies the water and accomplishes the same thing that snake oil salesmen do when they dump a carload of irrelevant technical information on clueless customers- complex charts and diagrams illustrating jitter or distortion at levels that they never reveal are totally inaudible. I don't see a purpose in confusing people with too much useless information.

 

[bigshot]

So, for example, I consider the "well substantiated fact" that "humans hear from 20 Hz to 20 kHz when tested using steady state sine waves" to be well substantiated - but limited.

Because most people can't hear all the way up to 20kHz. That is much more of an important thing to mention if you are going speak of exceptions to the rule, not that there was one 12 year old once who was able to detect sound pressure from a 23kHz tone. It doesn't matter though because those frequencies aren't really important to the sound quality of recorded music anyway.

Unfortunately, it is not. There are tons of instruments with overtones way past 20 kHz, which can be sensed by humans - even if we do not hear them with our ears as pure sine waves, they are perceived in other ways.

None of those other ways are relevant to the appreciation of sound quality in recorded music. In fact, I read a study once where they filtered off the whole top octave and even though some people could detect that a filter had been applied, they didn't think it impacted the quality of the sound at all. Take an equalizer and try it yourself and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[analogsurviver]

Because most people can't hear all the way up to 20kHz. That is much more of an important thing to mention if you are going speak of exceptions to the rule, not that there was one 12 year old once who was able to detect sound pressure from a 23kHz tone. It doesn't matter though because those frequencies aren't really important to the sound quality of recorded music anyway.



None of those other ways are relevant to the appreciation of sound quality in recorded music. In fact, I read a study once where they filtered off the whole top octave and even though some people could detect that a filter had been applied, they didn't think it impacted the quality of the sound at all. Take an equalizer and try it yourself and you'll see what I'm talking about.

And I have read the report on the blind testing of the Ionovac tweeter eons of years ago - where live mike feed has been used as source ( nothing that could store significantly above 20 kHz back in those days ) to a group of random chosen people, with the only question whether they can hear any difference or not - without telling them what is being tested. The difference was that the response to 20 kHz was always kept at the same level - the filter just above 20 kHz at 6 dB/octave ( or was it 12 ? ) was being switched on and off. The result was NOT in the 50:50 "guessing" range - people clearly preferred the unfiltered version.

The above I have heard and confirmed - not using Ionovac, as it is too far ago and on the wrong continent for me, but other devices with > 20 kHz response, too many times to even bother noting.

One might say - rightly so - that frequencies above 20 kHz are not relevant for the appreciation of music. Ignoring many great instrument builder along the way... - but, OK, if all that is required are the right notes, than I can agree with you.

I will NEVER agree on unimportance of frequencies above 20 kHz as far as recreation of space and original acoustics of the venue, where music is performed or has been recorded is concerned;
NEVER - EVER !!!

Although even stereo 2 channel DSD128 ( do not know for DSD256, have yet to use it for recording by myself ) does not manage to give quite the impression of surround at 96/24 as far as the depth, etc go - it IS infinitely better than glass plate flattnes of a CD.

One does approach the sensation of live - while the other is flat out dead.

And that - for this doozy - is more than worth fighting for.

Then again, I have yet to hear a proper demo of 5.1 - in DSD256 ... - it does exist, unfortunately way out of my reach at the time.

 

[RRod]

The fitting graphic comment to the above would be a farm of ostriches, each and every one of them trying to outdo the other just how deep he/she can stick the head into the sand ...

That's my typical method of filtering my HD800.

 

[bfreedma]

The post refers to you, not the entire forum ("us") - too late to hide in the crowd. I don't need your permission to call out your personal attack to the moderator and forum. We're not talking about a moderator editing your posts, we're talking about what you posted.

If you feel the need to report a post, there’s a link for that purpose.

IMO, the passive aggressive approach of posting in a thread asking a moderator to review something isn’t the best option. You can always PM and hash it out - that’s worked well for me in the past when I thought a post might have been a little over the line or when someone else thought a post of mine was.

 

[bigshot]

The acoustics of a recording venue are a matter of delays caused by reflection of sound, the effect the walls have on the sound, and directionality. The first two fit within 20-20. The last one is best reproduced with a multichannel speaker setup. Upper harmonics beyond a certain point are inaudible due to masking and the fact that each order of harmonics is usually at a lower level than the previous one. Music engineers usually just worry about the first three orders of harmonics. At least for acoustic musical instruments, nearly every instrument fits within 20kHz including all the important upper harmonics, with the exception of gamelan gongs and perhaps a triangle or cymbals close miked.

The yellow in this chart represents harmonics. https://www.audio-issues.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/main_chart.jpg

 

[upstateguy]

Blind testing involves listeners, hence the subjective aspect. Isn't the question whether people can *hear* certain objective differences?

I'm Sorry. You're Wrong. Blind testing is an objective test.

 

[analogsurviver]

Well, that chart is as old as the hills - and does not represent the true state of affairs. Remember, gear that does allow for proper recording to approx 100 kHz is commercially available only few years - less than five. Prior to that, it had to be a study on a university level, using one of a kind prototypes - and therefore there are not many of those around. This one is : https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

I have many DSD recordings with content above 20 kHz - and I NEVER use close miking ( with the exception of - say - couple of minutes of recording of a particularly interesting lecture on harpsichord tuning, where I did use "close miking" , say some 500kB - compared to some >>10 TB of other DSD masters done from "afar" ) . Among the instruments that have most content above 20 kHz, on continous basis, is harpsichord - bar none. And even that varies - wildly so - among various harpsichord builders. Like it or not - the harpsichord I do get to record most frequently is super alive and kicking, well above 20 kHz - and DOES sound differently if chopped off with the brick filter of the CD; despite its level above 20 kHz in dB or % of overall sound is admitedly still small.

The most fitting analogy is with soup; you can put all the best ingedients in it, you can simmer it real ultra slow olden style, etc - without that pinch of salt it just will not taste good.
Or, in case of sound, it will not sound convincingly live, you will *know* it is a recording .

 

[amirm]

I'm Sorry. You're Wrong. Blind testing is an objective test.

He is correct actually. Any listening test is subjective. It involves "subjects" whose opinion can change even in the same test taken in sequence. I

We can draw objective conclusions from the test results but the test itself remains subjective.

Take Dr. Sean Olive who is famous for all of his controlled, blind tests. This is from his bio:

That said, it is a common mistake to call it objective. So let's not have a fight over it.

 

[bigshot]

Remember, gear that does allow for proper recording to approx 100 kHz is commercially available only few years - less than five.

Human ears haven't changed in the past five years. I'm talking about audible sound.

He is correct actually. Any listening test is subjective. It involves "subjects" whose opinion can change even in the same test taken in sequence.

It depends on the test. If you ask them which sample they prefer, it's subjective. If you ask them to let you know when they hear a tone, it's perceptual and objective. They either hear it or they don't. They aren't being asked to make any determination on their own. Controls are designed to reduce subjectivity so you can focus on the objective result.

 

[upstateguy]

He is correct actually. Any listening test is subjective. It involves "subjects" whose opinion can change even in the same test taken in sequence. I

We can draw objective conclusions from the test results but the test itself remains subjective.

Take Dr. Sean Olive who is famous for all of his controlled, blind tests. This is from his bio:



That said, it is a common mistake to call it objective. So let's not have a fight over it.

Good luck trying to wag that dog in the main forum.

I should have labeled it as an objectivist's tool.