[bigshot]

Sometimes I think people are more interested in testing methodology than sound. If you need to construct some sort of Rube Goldberg machine to hear a difference, maybe it just doesn't matter.

 

[kiteki]

Sometimes I think people are more interested in testing methodology than sound. If you need to construct some sort of Rube Goldberg machine to hear a difference, maybe it just doesn't matter.

 
Yes, but then incandescent versus fluroescent lighting and monitor refresh rates above 60Hz and stuff like that don't matter either, or why people become addicted to tanning salons, or fall for subliminal advertising, or why people working in certain industries get mercury poisoning, or life-long tinnitus from using ultrasonic cleaning machines, and so on.
 
There are subtle differences in audio, and they don't have to be consciously audible, or readily apparent to every single consumer in a basic ABX test.
 
If you want amazing differences, you can get 7.1 Logitech surround speakers and a sub-woofer.  =]

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

life-long tinnitus from using ultrasonic cleaning machines

Tissue damage and conscious recognition are two entirely different things. If a projectile moving near the speed of light struck you, would you argue that because it hurt you could see it?

 

[Tilpo]

Tissue damage and conscious recognition are two entirely different things. If a projectile moving near the speed of light struck you, would you argue that because it hurt you could see it?

As far as I know the transfer function of the middle ear drops down very fast at ultrasonic frequencies, and therefore most ultrasonic frequencies won't reach the cochlea, making damage impossible.

 

[DaBomb77766]

Quote:

As far as I know the transfer function of the middle ear drops down very fast at ultrasonic frequencies, and therefore most ultrasonic frequencies won't reach the cochlea, making damage impossible.

I'm sure it'd still cause damage if it were loud enough though...

 

[Tilpo]

I'm sure it'd still cause damage if it were loud enough though...

You can physically die from very loud volumes.

But very high frequencies will probably not even enter the cochlea at any reasonable volume, so I don't see how they could cause hearing loss. E.g. a signal at 40kHz is attenuated by very large amounts (at least -40dB) in the middle ear, and will hardly be transmitted at all to the cochlea.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

As far as I know the transfer function of the middle ear drops down very fast at ultrasonic frequencies, and therefore most ultrasonic frequencies won't reach the cochlea, making damage impossible.

I wasn't the one making the argument that damage was possible. I was responding to kiteki's assumption that what causes tinnitus must be perceivable.

 

[kiteki]

As far as I know the transfer function of the middle ear drops down very fast at ultrasonic frequencies, and therefore most ultrasonic frequencies won't reach the cochlea, making damage impossible.

 
You say impossible too quickly, there's usually other avenues to explore, there are many paths up the same mountain.
 

 
 
 
 

Originally Posted by Head Injury /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I was responding to kiteki's assumption that what causes tinnitus must be perceivable.

 
No, you're correct.
 
I'm saying those effects are imperceivable, and thus won't show up in a simple ABX.
 
For example you can't ABX two tanning salon beds and say which one is better, since you can't see the ultraviolet light, nor can you perceive the effects (like endorphin release, skin cancer) straight away.
 
Another example, if random people are presented three different computer monitors, to watch a Disney movie on, and asked to ABX them, they most likely won't detect the differences in the superior model, especially if they don't know what to look for, (like ghosting, refresh rate, audio/visual exact sync (input latency), different resolution...)
 
A video editor, competetive gamer, fast action sports addict, videophile etc. could identify the differences if they knew what to look for.
 
 
I think there's less illusion and less filtering in visuals though.  In audio we're more susceptible to illusions and filtering, however our mind likes to organise the information and filter what's unnecessary too, identify patterns and so on.
 
For example, a lot of Japanese can't hear the difference between R and L, they have an "R filter", so they'd fail an R versus L ABX, while the difference between rabbit and labbit is striking to an American.
 
The "sonic memory" and "less than 0.1 second switch" only applies to certain sonic differences like volume (intensity), frequency response shifts, and a few others.  The 0.1 second rapid-switch, time-aligned ABX could very well introduce a slight illusion of it's own - since once you've identified a certain continual pattern of sound, a slight shift in it's basic components may not alter the final pattern.
 
Here is a visual example of pattern recognition and identification.  Once you can see this image you can never unsee it, even if you looked at it 10 years later, and the random black shapes were shifted around a bit.
 

 

[kiteki]

p.s.  I'm not writing this to defend expensive cables or CD players, which seems to be 95% of the first post in the thread.
 
Just saying scientific papers and ABX all have their flaws and limits.  There's a lot of junk in expensive audio, and several gems.  The task is to identify the gems, not say it's all junk, lol.
 
It's like tasting a sour apple, and saying "I hate fruit", I mean... one day you might find a pineapple... or a dragonfruit milkshake!
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Regarding sample size, the reason for putting together all the studies was to get round that problem. It is a meta study which has advantages of different times, places, people and if there are minor flaws they are balanced by other tests without the same flaw. Even with all of those differences and minor flaws the results are very consistent.
 
With blind comparison tests where people are asked to chose their preferred sound, cheap products can do as well as expensive. That is very good evidence to show us looks and brand etc influence sound quality.
 
With ABX, where people have to decide if X is A or B and identify the product, then the results are even worse as in people mainly do no better than random guessing.
 
If the tests were all seriously flawed then how come there is this consistency? Add in sighted tests to the mix where we get easy to spot differences and night and day claims, which again is very good evidence to show looks, brand etc affect sound quality.
 
You have to also bear in mind this thread deals with failed tests, there is another one with passed tests. Put the two together and you find some parts of the hifi chain such as cables fail all of the time. But amps do pass, just and speakers even more so. I agree further testing of people who pass the likes of the Hifi Matrix test is needed as it tested a whole system so those who passed may well go on and do so again as amps have passed blind tests (as well as failed).

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Another example, if random people are presented three different computer monitors, to watch a Disney movie on, and asked to ABX them, they most likely won't detect the differences in the superior model, especially if they don't know what to look for, (like ghosting, refresh rate, audio/visual exact sync (input latency), different resolution...)
 
A video editor, competetive gamer, fast action sports addict, videophile etc. could identify the differences if they knew what to look for.

By using this example are you trying to imply that certain golden-eared audiophiles or trained listeners can appreciate the difference between ultrasonic and no ultrasonic frequencies? Because I still call ******** on that.
 
Ghosting, refresh rate, sync, resolution are all detectable phenomena. Ultrasonic frequencies aren't, except in exceedingly rare cases where 1. Information exists at those frequencies, 2. a listener is blessed with good hearing beyond 20 kHz. It is a case by case basis, not a function of knowing what to listen for.

 

[DaBomb77766]

I thought it was more on the topic of hearing damage with high frequency sounds though?

 

[khaos974]

p.s.  I'm not writing this to defend expensive cables or CD players, which seems to be 95% of the first post in the thread.

Just saying scientific papers and ABX all have their flaws and limits.  There's a lot of junk in expensive audio, and several gems.  The task is to identify the gems, not say it's all junk, lol.

It's like tasting a sour apple, and saying "I hate fruit", I mean... one day you might find a pineapple... or a dragonfruit milkshake!

Dragonfruits are ok, but the sugar-apples beside them are absolutely delicious.

 

[Tilpo]

Dragonfruits are ok, but the sugar-apples beside them are absolutely delicious.

Am I weird for never having tasted either?

 

[khaos974]

Dragonfruits are ok, but the sugar-apples beside them are absolutely delicious.

Am I weird for never having tasted either?

Not at all, I have on very rare occasions seen dragonfruits in France, but I've never seen sugar-apples, I presume it's the same in the Netherlands.
If you have Asian markets newr where you live, that's usually where you can find really exotic fruits, like durians ( ) for example.