KeithEmo
Member of the Trade: Emotiva
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Posts
- 1,698
- Likes
- 868
It is funny how that circle keeps going around and around....
(Although I'm not sure where it exactly started this time.)
1)
You pointed out how a null test will demonstrate even the tiniest differences...
I agree entirely, however, as I pointed out, if you null two of anything carefully enough, you always fine a little difference...
So, rather than prove "two things are actually identical"...
We always end up back at "now that we know exactly what the difference is we have to decide whether it counts or not".
At which point someone chimes back in with that mystical knowledge that a certain null is "good enough we can act as if it's inaudible without bothering to test it".
(I suspect you're right, and that some difference is "small enough to be inaudible", but I'm not quite sure exactly where that number lies... maybe we need to test it.)
(And I think that's even more true with digital systems - where you can have extremely large measured differences that only occur for very brief amounts of time.)
2)
I do apologize for #2.
I personally am willing to accept that the results from those particular tests were what you say.
(But a lot of other folks on this forum seem to think that "all claims are anecdotal if we don't get the data that goes with them".)
And, yes, those results are interesting... especially that they show that, at least under those conditions, experience seems to be more significant that "raw hearing acuity".
(But we still don't actually know if the massive difference in the hearing acuity of a five year old would override that difference - until we test it.)
3)
That's good... and eliminates one possible issue with the results that many others seem to overlook.
(Like the tests that only include the rather narrow demographic of members of some particular "audiophile group".)
4)
Perhaps "common sense" was a poor choice of words.
When we design a test that is intended to "prove a general case"....
The general advice is to include any and all test samples that may reasonably be expected to prove the case.
Since a single outlier renders you unable to make a generalization about "everyone" you have to try as hard as you can to find all the outliers.
This is always a balance between practicality and thoroughness... and always ends up excluding a few that "everyone agrees won't matter"...
This is a flaw that is present in all tests and is, for all practical purposes, unavoidable.
I would, however, point out that it is much more of an issue in some situations that others.
For example, there is a lot of incentive provided for fast human runners to come forward.
The possibility of an Olympic gold medal, and a few $million in endorsements, makes it extremely likely that most fast runners HAVE been clocked.
Even further, anyone who exhibited unusual aptitude in school has a good chance of receiving additional training to achieve their maximum potential.
However, there is no such clear-cut incentive for people with exceptional hearing to come forward and be tested.
Therefore, in practical terms, only a tiny percentage of every human on Earth has even had their hearing tested.
(At a wild guess... very few five year olds, with their excellent hearing acuity, has ever gone to a course to train them how to listen properly.)
5)
On the last part of your last comment...
I very much doubt we have many five year old customers...
(And, to be honest, I doubt many of our customers would buy equipment just because their five year old child preferred the way it sounds.)
However, as has been pointed out so often, this is not a forum about marketing... but about science.
Whether, if five year olds could hear a difference, there would be any commercial value to that fact is a matter for another forum.
I'm merely curious, for scientific purposes, whether it may happen to be true or not.
(Although I'm not sure where it exactly started this time.)
1)
You pointed out how a null test will demonstrate even the tiniest differences...
I agree entirely, however, as I pointed out, if you null two of anything carefully enough, you always fine a little difference...
So, rather than prove "two things are actually identical"...
We always end up back at "now that we know exactly what the difference is we have to decide whether it counts or not".
At which point someone chimes back in with that mystical knowledge that a certain null is "good enough we can act as if it's inaudible without bothering to test it".
(I suspect you're right, and that some difference is "small enough to be inaudible", but I'm not quite sure exactly where that number lies... maybe we need to test it.)
(And I think that's even more true with digital systems - where you can have extremely large measured differences that only occur for very brief amounts of time.)
2)
I do apologize for #2.
I personally am willing to accept that the results from those particular tests were what you say.
(But a lot of other folks on this forum seem to think that "all claims are anecdotal if we don't get the data that goes with them".)
And, yes, those results are interesting... especially that they show that, at least under those conditions, experience seems to be more significant that "raw hearing acuity".
(But we still don't actually know if the massive difference in the hearing acuity of a five year old would override that difference - until we test it.)
3)
That's good... and eliminates one possible issue with the results that many others seem to overlook.
(Like the tests that only include the rather narrow demographic of members of some particular "audiophile group".)
4)
Perhaps "common sense" was a poor choice of words.
When we design a test that is intended to "prove a general case"....
The general advice is to include any and all test samples that may reasonably be expected to prove the case.
Since a single outlier renders you unable to make a generalization about "everyone" you have to try as hard as you can to find all the outliers.
This is always a balance between practicality and thoroughness... and always ends up excluding a few that "everyone agrees won't matter"...
This is a flaw that is present in all tests and is, for all practical purposes, unavoidable.
I would, however, point out that it is much more of an issue in some situations that others.
For example, there is a lot of incentive provided for fast human runners to come forward.
The possibility of an Olympic gold medal, and a few $million in endorsements, makes it extremely likely that most fast runners HAVE been clocked.
Even further, anyone who exhibited unusual aptitude in school has a good chance of receiving additional training to achieve their maximum potential.
However, there is no such clear-cut incentive for people with exceptional hearing to come forward and be tested.
Therefore, in practical terms, only a tiny percentage of every human on Earth has even had their hearing tested.
(At a wild guess... very few five year olds, with their excellent hearing acuity, has ever gone to a course to train them how to listen properly.)
5)
On the last part of your last comment...
I very much doubt we have many five year old customers...
(And, to be honest, I doubt many of our customers would buy equipment just because their five year old child preferred the way it sounds.)
However, as has been pointed out so often, this is not a forum about marketing... but about science.
Whether, if five year olds could hear a difference, there would be any commercial value to that fact is a matter for another forum.
I'm merely curious, for scientific purposes, whether it may happen to be true or not.
1. Why? Every time you repeat your falsehood, effectively that we can measure everything/differences, I point out the Null Test which does exactly that. You then always come back with some variation of; you can't get a perfect null with analogue equipment, which of course is nonsense that ironically relies on an audiophile myth! We don't need a perfect null because human hearing is not perfect, a null which peaks at say -110dB is inaudible, we have masses of reliable evidence covering many decades which demonstrates this fact and in some cases even a very poor null (at say -20dB) is inaudible! This is probably about the fifth time I've had to refute your false assertion, point out the Null Test and then refute your false/misrepresented objection to it. So, why? Why do you keep going round in circles and repeating the same falsehood when you know it's false?
2. In a test to determine the highest frequency teenage subjects can hear, the mid point of the distribution (average maximum limit) was between 16kHz and 17kHz.
2a. Even if I still had access to that data (which I don't), it would be highly illegal to share it. The "single best score" was 19kHz, although it wasn't single, about half a dozen students achieved this, none ever managed 20kHz though. Interestingly, these best scores were all obtained by older (more experienced) students, 19-21 year olds, not the youngest (16 year olds).
3. Our students had a very wide cultural background, from many different countries and of course, there are universities all over the world running sound engineering courses.
4. You are misrepresenting what I have stated. Almost without exception all the students had better hearing acuity than me, but worse listening skills, which of course is why I was teaching them listening skills and not the other way around! What's the point of stating that we should "also include applying common sense" if you then don't? The only rational answer is: An attempt to legitimise a false/fallacious assertion, another extremely common audiophile tactic!
5. Ah, so you're ignoring the response already given to this misrepresentation! Let me remind you: "The world record for the mile in the late 1960's was 3:51 and today it stands at 3:43. Even with all the modern scientific advancements in training that's still only an improvement of just 8 seconds in over 50 years, so a further improvement by another 103 seconds (to 2:00) is NOT "reasonably unlikely" it's incredibly unlikely and almost certainly utterly impossible (without artificial enhancements)!" - Just as with the very young children nonsense, you're now adding; maybe "in the next few thousand years". Again, you market your amps to very young children do you? Do you state in your marketing that it might be possible to hear a difference with your amps in a few thousand years time, assuming humans evolve better hearing? This is the application of common sense is it?
You also bring up another interesting point... about "accurate rendition" and "audiophiles".
Many of us agree that, when we look at a movie, we really don't want it to be "rendered true to real life".
For example, we really don't expect or want to get a sunburn during those scenes in The Martian, or to have hearing damage after the rocket loudly takes off.
However, many videophiles do in fact have their monitors calibrated, in an effort to achieve as accurate a rendition of the colors as possible.
And, while a few dedicated audiophiles actually expend similar effort with their systems...
Perhaps it is surprising that more of them don't actively seek to exactly reproduce that original concert.
I'm merely pointing out that many audiophiles claim to want "accurate sound reproduction"....
But, in reality, what they really are looking for is "what sounds good to them in their living room"....
And, often, what that works out to is "what they imagine the original performance sounded like - filtered through their memory and perceptions".
As several people here have suggested.
(If they wanted real accuracy - we could include test level tones on every album... just as professional video often includes test calibration spot patterns.)
===============================================================
1. That's a staggering statement from someone who professes to have recording experience/knowledge! Decibels (dB) is arguably the most fundamental of measurement scales in audio and you use it all the time yourself but you apparently don't even know what it is. The very first line of the wiki definition is: "The decibel (symbol: dB) is a unit of measurement used to express the ratio of one value of a power or field quantity to another on a logarithmic scale." - Any volume level expressed as a decibel is therefore by definition "relative". How is it possible you don't know pretty much the very first thing that any new student of recording should know? Staggering!
2. Again, that's just staggering! You demonstrate you know you get less sound at your position in the audience than at the conductors position. In fact, you could roughly calculate how much less using the inverse square law that you yourself quoted! At the conductors position, a couple of meters or so from the orchestra, peak levels of a Mahler symphony might reach as high as about 110dBSPL, "some far corner of the [symphony hall] venue" would very approximately be about 40m away and using the inverse square law would result in a peak level of roughly 85dB. However, this figure only includes loss in a free field, it doesn't include audience (or any other) absorption or additional HF air absorption, so the peak level at your seating position is indeed going to be about 80dBSPL or lower. It would be easy to measure the SPL, so why haven't you? Furthermore, although you are distant from the orchestra, you are still inside the audience and therefore the orchestra is going to be much quieter but the noise floor is going to be roughly the same. Even taking the most optimistic peak level of 85dB and the likely noise floor about 40dB, you are ironically correct, you indeed wouldn't have a dynamic range of "only 50db", it would be significantly less; possibly as much as 45dB but probably no more than about 40dB!! Again, how is it possible you didn't know this and have never noticed (in all your years of proclaimed study and recording experience)? It's literally unbelievable!
The rest of your post is effectively utter nonsense as it's based on this staggering/unbelievable ignorance!
Why is it that when engaging with audiophiles (and audiophile marketers), that they inevitably lower the discussion to the completely absurd with absolutely zero relevance to the discussion/today's consumers? Babies' hearing acuity, human evolution in a few thousand years, CD isn't good enough even though it has a dynamic range 1,000 times greater than what you're actually recording, we haven't done parallel universes yet, is that next? sheesh!
G