[colonelkernel8]

If 'sound science' refers to the sound perceived by music listeners, there are areas of science (and technology) involved which go well beyond considerations of equipment, rooms, etc. The science relevant to listeners has to address ears and brains, and maybe we can't entirely avoid talking about 'minds' too. Interesting stuff for those who want to try to look at the whole picture.

I'm going to go with "a complete waste of time". We cannot control sound once it has been converted into firing neurons...unless we're going to become the substance abuse forum. Pointless.

This is also not the place for "tree-falling-in-the-woods" naval-gazing, pseudo-philosophy.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

Disagree, psychoacoustics are very fundamental to the design of lossy codecs (heresy to even mention here, I know), and can be relevant to loudspeaker design also, both of which are firmly within our grasp here.

 

[analogsurviver]

1. Oh good, more utter nonsense. Professional orchestras have very little rehearsal time, typically one or two days (2-4 sessions) before the performance and then a rehearsal on the day of the performance. "Rehearse to death" is complete nonsense!
2. What is this, a competition to see how much nonsense you can invent in one post? Orchestras pretty much ALWAYS have a rehearsal in the concert venue, this rehearsal even has it's own name, it's called a "Dress Rehearsal". I get that you're ignorant and don't know anything about orchestras, concerts, rehearsals or recording but what I don't get is why you just make up lies and nonsense?!



What hard earned knowledge? The only thing you've demonstrated is a complete lack of of even the most basic knowledge ... and the ability to make-up complete nonsense!

Again, it's just not worth going through each and every nonsense point in your posts. It's (more than) enough now, STOP with all your completely made-up nonsense and trolling!

G

Well, you describe an ideal situation. That is how it should have been - and if you and the orchestras you work with have the privilege of always rehearsing in the venue the concert will be held in, than consider yourself more lucky then some.

Think about the way it is done here; the subscription concerts are both on thursday and friday - in the large hall. The first rehearsal on monday morning is in a much smaller hall - with any section rehearsals likely to be held in the afternoon. This gets repeated on tuesday and wednesday - but normally without the section rehearsals. The first time the orchestra is in the big hall where the concert(s) are to be held, is thursday morning; that would - or not - be your Dress Rehearsal ( each work on the concert programme played in one piece, without any interruptions or corrections, just like in a real performance, with break(s) as most appropriate ). The real dress rehearsal is most likely to be held on friday morning - IF it has not been held already on thursday. Varies according to a plethora of reasons and conditions.

The above described holds true for the best possible scenario - that of Slovenian Philharmonics. Even the national radiotelevision symphonic orchestra has already worse conditions - not to mention anybody else. If and when they do get to perform in the big hall, the rehearsal it is most likely in the morning before the concert , break for lunch, then again "sort of dress rehearsal- abridged, short fast version" in the afternoon - and that's it. Concert in the evening ...
I have heard not a single concert played worse than during the rehearsals as a direct result of this - due to the fact that musicians, particularly young(er) with less experience, simply could no longer hold the concentration towards the end of the concert .

 

[colonelkernel8]

Disagree, psychoacoustics are very fundamental to the design of lossy codecs (heresy to even mention here, I know), and can be relevant to loudspeaker design also, both of which are firmly within our grasp here.

However, we can clearly measure the differences between lossy and lossless audio, so it's merely redundant.

 

[MacacoDoSom]

Not to backseat mod or whatever, but I think this thread could take to heart the "principle of charity", meaning when arguing with someone you should interpret their argument in the strongest / most charitable way you can, (i.e. give the benefit of as much doubt as you can on the part of the argument and arguer). For one thing it keeps things more civil, it also forces you to use your strongest arguments as well.

There are more than a few posts ITT where I read something significantly less ignorant or controversial in the post, than other commenters did.

We're all on the same team here, which is the team that wants to rationally and methodically approach better sound, rather than throwing money at the problem and crossing our fingers

I think the only fundamental point of difference there ought to be is basically between someone like me and @bigshot - he only cares about what's actionable for his home setup, which is quite reasonable. I personally find the outer limits of theory and measurement to be pretty interesting, regardless of whether I can use them at home or work.

This can also lead to arguments and misunderstandings - I actually want to know if there are ANY predictable/repeatable exceptions to the "ultrasonics are inaudible" rule, others find this to be worse than a waste of time and muddying the waters, to the detriment of the community.

But being that this is the sound science section, I think having a lot of arguments over semantics is a bad sign.

"ultrasonics are inaudible", I hope so because in this 'Audiophile' recording "John Coltrane - Alternate Takes - Giant Steps 192 kHz 24 bit" I can see this:

 

[bigshot]

Disagree, psychoacoustics are very fundamental to the design of lossy codecs (heresy to even mention here, I know), and can be relevant to loudspeaker design also, both of which are firmly within our grasp here.

Psychoacoustics operates on scientific principles like auditory masking and response curves. Discussion of that sort of thing is different than philosophical semantic arguments about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. I'd love to hear someone talk about psychoacoustics who knows something about the subject. Maybe someday someone with experience there will stop by and chat with us.

 

[bigshot]

"ultrasonics are inaudible", I hope so because in this 'Audiphile' recording "John Coltrane - Alternate Takes - Giant Steps 192 kHz 24 bit" I can see this:

Holy cow! The other day I got a little gadget at Amazon that is designed to make dogs stop barking. It emits a loud super audible squeal. I've had it three days now and I've only pressed the button twice. My dogs are quiet as a mouse. I bet this album would work the same way.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

Psychoacoustics operates on scientific principles like auditory masking and response curves. Discussion of that sort of thing is different than philosophical semantic arguments about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. I'd love to hear someone talk about psychoacoustics who knows something about the subject. Maybe someday someone with experience there will stop by and chat with us.

With you all the way on that one.

 

[MacacoDoSom]

Holy cow! The other day I got a little gadget at Amazon that is designed to make dogs stop barking. It emits a loud super audible squeal. I've had it three days now and I've only pressed the button twice. My dogs are quiet as a mouse. I bet this album would work the same way.

I think my speakers don't reproduce very well those frequencies and I don't have a dog to try it, maybe I'll try it with the cat...

 

[SoundAndMotion]

I'd love to hear someone talk about psychoacoustics who knows something about the subject. Maybe someday someone with experience there will stop by and chat with us.

I doubt your sincerity. You and a small number of copious posters seem to want to drive such people away.
For example:

I don't see any benefit from engaging with him. He has an agenda here that doesn't interest me. I have my own purpose.

 

[bigshot]

Hang it up on the hearth at Christmas.

I think my speakers don't reproduce very well those frequencies and I don't have a dog to try it, maybe I'll try it with the cat...

Poor cat! When I push the button on my bark stopper, the pups skid across the floor and run under a bed to hide. Maybe your cat will have the same reaction to Coletrane!

 

[castleofargh]

if we're looking to determine the limits of human hearing(within a reasonable margin), we should consider all test signals under all conditions with results from the guy achieving the very best result. and whatever that best result is, that's the new limit until someone beats it. those are the stuff
@amirm is looking for. and obviously it's a vast subject where each and any variable needs to be tested independently and then maybe mixed with other stuff to answer different questions.

if we're looking to determine what the average Joe(or ourselves)will notice while listening to his favorite song at normal listening level, then the blind tests should be performed using their favorite music at their preferred listening levels in a reasonably quiet but not anechoic room. everything else is irrelevant because it's dealing with a different question.
to be clear there is nothing wrong with trying to answer a different question, but then it should have been that question from the start, a very clear one with context and all. all those conversations where someone is contently changing the question and moving the conditions or even the definition of words... that's super lame and never ever constructive.


in any case, nothing is going to be proved until a proper listening experiment demonstrates it. that much is a fact. so all of you with the mega ears or mega gears, or just the mega ego that let you think you perceive what I consistently fail to notice. I'm waiting for you guys to set up some irreproachable listening test and pass it, so that even if scientists come to look at it, have questions about the protocol and wish to replicate it, you will always be able to follow through instead of the usual "I heard it, I don't have to prove anything to you" that we are all too used to read.
then replicating such a test will let us know more about everything. like maybe if your gear is special, if your ears are special, or if maybe we could all do it all along and we only needed the right test.
that kind of stuff would absolutely have the power to convince me and many others. clear questions, organized rigorous diagnostic, serious job on isolating and controlling any potentially relevant variables(so never sighted!!!), that's how we demonstrate the practical audibility of something and find out what really caused it. why is another question, often a really hard one.

but to all the proponents of something audibly different who lack the clear means to demonstrate it. as far as I'm concerned, you have no fact. so making claims about your beliefs is just wasting everybody's time. that's my personal opinion.

@castleofargh maybe this thread's title should be changed from "testing audiophile myths and claims" to: "let's invent as many nonsense audiophile claims as we can"? If not, then maybe it's time to start doing something about what can only be trolling? (It must be trolling because I can't believe this amount of ignorance and delusional assertions is even possible)!

I think the issue here is very clear. most of the time the testing aspect went out the window with the bathwater like a hot potato that killed the cat since sliced bread.
empty claims in an argumentation are like Dirac pulses in a band limited signal, illegal concepts.

 

[KeithEmo]

Absolutely.....

It's one of several dozen common tests - but it's also one of the tests most people don't bother to run.
In fact, it probably wouldn't occur to most people to run it until AFTER listening to the recording and noting that it sounded unusual.
And, to anyone who didn't happen to include that particular test on their list, those two files would "measure the same - within the limits of audibility".
Although most people who've actually listened to a similar pair of files would cheerfully say: "It's so obvious I really don't need a test to prove to me that it's real".

And THAT was my point.

To people who routinely work with and measure DACs, those impulse response graphs that show ringing ARE "standard measurements for DACs".
Manufacturers of DAC chips routinely publish them; reviewers routinely publish them; and they often differ significantly between different products.

Now, to be honest, I don't recall ever seeing any big study PROVING that the differences are audible.
The catch there seems to be that some of the filters, along with the differences in ringing response, also introduce obvious variations in frequency response.
Therefore, it becomes a matter of:
"Some of the filters probably sound different, at least in part, because they significantly alter the frequency response."
"But there hasn't been much study to determine whether there is an audible difference between the filters that have a similar frequency response."

While 'check the phase difference between channels' is a specific test, it isn't SO out there right?

 

[Phronesis]

if we're looking to determine the limits of human hearing(within a reasonable margin), we should consider all test signals under all conditions with results from the guy achieving the very best result. and whatever that best result is, that's the new limit until someone beats it. those are the stuff
@amirm is looking for. and obviously it's a vast subject where each and any variable needs to be tested independently and then maybe mixed with other stuff to answer different questions.

if we're looking to determine what the average Joe(or ourselves)will notice while listening to his favorite song at normal listening level, then the blind tests should be performed using their favorite music at their preferred listening levels in a reasonably quiet but not anechoic room. everything else is irrelevant because it's dealing with a different question.
to be clear there is nothing wrong with trying to answer a different question, but then it should have been that question from the start, a very clear one with context and all. all those conversations where someone is contently changing the question and moving the conditions or even the definition of words... that's super lame and never ever constructive.


in any case, nothing is going to be proved until a proper listening experiment demonstrates it. that much is a fact. so all of you with the mega ears or mega gears, or just the mega ego that let you think you perceive what I consistently fail to notice. I'm waiting for you guys to set up some irreproachable listening test and pass it, so that even if scientists come to look at it, have questions about the protocol and wish to replicate it, you will always be able to follow through instead of the usual "I heard it, I don't have to prove anything to you" that we are all too used to read.
then replicating such a test will let us know more about everything. like maybe if your gear is special, if your ears are special, or if maybe we could all do it all along and we only needed the right test.
that kind of stuff would absolutely have the power to convince me and many others. clear questions, organized rigorous diagnostic, serious job on isolating and controlling any potentially relevant variables(so never sighted!!!), that's how we demonstrate the practical audibility of something and find out what really caused it. why is another question, often a really hard one.

but to all the proponents of something audibly different who lack the clear means to demonstrate it. as far as I'm concerned, you have no fact. so making claims about your beliefs is just wasting everybody's time. that's my personal opinion.

With all of that in mind, as the moderator, it would be appreciated if you could give those of us who aren't forum regulars more idea of what 'belongs' and 'doesn't belong' in the forum discussions. There seem to be different ideas about what the scope of the forum is intended to be in terms of whether we're talking physical sound vs perceived sound, and what areas of science are considered relevant. From a personal standpoint, the topics that interest me and my perspectives on those topics should be evident by now (and are fairly broad), and if my participation in the forum is a net negative for the forum, I'll move on with no hard feelings.

 

[amirm]

I'd love to hear someone talk about psychoacoustics who knows something about the subject.

Love it? You hate it.

Maybe someday someone with experience there will stop by and chat with us.

I do and I have. There has been nothing but disdain for the few of you.