[gregorio]

[1] I think the horse has left the barn regarding "fidelity" having both an objective and subjective meaning.
[2] Agreed that they're two different things, but they're related.
[3] I think the notion that equipment could have objective fidelity is an ideal which is unattainable even in principle.
[4] And I don't think any measurement of the sound produced by a headphone can replicate how a headphone interacts with real human anatomy ...
[4a] In that regard, I think we need to generally recognize the limitations of measurements.
[5] It's naively reductionistic to say that two things are the same because they were the same on some measurements.
[5a] It would be like saying two people have the same blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood glucose level, so they have the same biology and state of health.

1. Yes, but fortunately only in the audiophile community and only in a section of the audiophile community!

2. Not necessarily, they are very commonly completely unrelated. There are numerous examples where subjective preference and perception of higher sound quality actually equates to exactly the same or even a lower fidelity. Vinyl vs CD, tubes, USB purifiers, just to name a few of many examples of lower fidelity which are often considered by audiophiles as being higher sound quality/"fidelity".

3. Objective perfect fidelity? Yes, I'd agree absolutely. Objective perfect fidelity within the limits of audibility? Mmm, for many parts of a reproduction system, "No" I would not agree, it is attainable in both principle and practise! For the transducers though, then "yes" I'd agree but it's a more reserved "yes", in principle it could be attainable but not really in practice. High (rather than perfect) fidelity for transducers is about as good as it gets.

4. That's not entirely true. We have HRTFs, although I admit they're highly generalised and therefore don't necessarily work as well as intended for many, me included. Which leads on to ...
4a. And we all do! We've got hardly any measurements of human perception and those we have are generalised and therefore not necessarily very accurate, as I've stated previously. A transducer's job is just to convert an electrical current into a physical sound pressure wave, that's it. How your personal anatomy interacts with that sound wave is effectively part of your perception and not part of an audio reproduction system.

5. Doesn't that entirely depend on what those two things are, what their job is and what measurements you're talking about?
5a. No, it would be nothing even remotely like thatl! We know human biology and state of health is way more complex than just blood pressure, heart and respiration rate and blood glucose levels, so just these measurements are only going to partially define certain aspects of biology and state of health. In contrast, a DAC's job for example, is simply to reconstruct the amplitude and frequency of an electric current, that's it, that's the entirety of a DACs job ("state of health")!

G

 

[Phronesis]

1. Yes, but fortunately only in the audiophile community and only in a section of the audiophile community!

2. Not necessarily, they are very commonly completely unrelated. There are numerous examples where subjective preference and perception of higher sound quality actually equates to exactly the same or even a lower fidelity. Vinyl vs CD, tubes, USB purifiers, just to name a few of many examples of lower fidelity which are often considered by audiophiles as being higher sound quality/"fidelity".

3. Objective perfect fidelity? Yes, I'd agree absolutely. Objective perfect fidelity within the limits of audibility? Mmm, for many parts of a reproduction system, "No" I would not agree, it is attainable in both principle and practise! For the transducers though, then "yes" I'd agree but it's a more reserved "yes", in principle it could be attainable but not really in practice. High (rather than perfect) fidelity for transducers is about as good as it gets.

4. That's not entirely true. We have HRTFs, although I admit they're highly generalised and therefore don't necessarily work as well as intended for many, me included. Which leads on to ...
4a. And we all do! We've got hardly any measurements of human perception and those we have are generalised and therefore not necessarily very accurate, as I've stated previously. A transducer's job is just to convert an electrical current into a physical sound pressure wave, that's it. How your personal anatomy interacts with that sound wave is effectively part of your perception and not part of an audio reproduction system.

5. Doesn't that entirely depend on what those two things are, what their job is and what measurements you're talking about?
5a. No, it would be nothing even remotely like thatl! We know human biology and state of health is way more complex than just blood pressure, heart and respiration rate and blood glucose levels, so just these measurements are only going to partially define certain aspects of biology and state of health. In contrast, a DAC's job for example, is simply to reconstruct the amplitude and frequency of an electric current, that's it, that's the entirety of a DACs job ("state of health")!

G

I don't take issue with any of this.

I would just add, though, that I've found that the differences between DACs and amps are larger than I would have expected. I don't know if you've read the posts by Rob Watts from Chord; he has some interesting comments about how some technical aspects of design affect sound perception (especially related to timing and noise floor).

Getting back to the original topic, it seems that the term 'audiophile' is somewhat vague and problematic, since it encompasses people with a wide range of levels of interest in music, musical taste, technical background, background in music production and recording, etc. So my answer to the question of the psychology of audiophiles would very much depend on the specific 'audiophile' we're talking about. What seems to be common to most people in this forum is an interest in equipment, but it seems that a minority here may be a lot more interested in music than equipment.

I'm not sure what to make of someone having an intense interest in equipment. On one hand, finding a great combination of equipment and music can make for a sublime experience. On the other hand, obsession with equipment and sound (rather than music) can distract from enjoying music, and take up a lot of time and money, but maybe that's where the 'hobby' part comes in. Despite my having an interest in music for decades, almost all of the gear you see in my current signature was purchased within the past 6 months, after opening Spotify and Tidal accounts which make a vast amount of music easily accessible, and I can't really predict when I'll conclude that my equipment is 'good enough' and pay attention only to music (I have some older audio gear also, but have gotten away from buying CDs, and not really interested in going back to vinyl). By exploring psychology of audiophiles, I hoped to better understand myself, but I'm not sure that I've made much progress in that regard.

 

[Redcarmoose]

After a level of existence is achieved the human has time and resources for another level of life.........be it cars, stereos or whatever, the thoughts of pleasure can be strong.

A) Some members are closer to the equipment side.
B) Some members are closer to the music side.

The idea is that if well replayed music is pleasing, then better quality reproduction could be a more pleasured experience.


Perception is fickle, so when some report back about so and so, others jump in. After the group census then reports flaws, many jump ship. Perception can be walked around like a dog around town.

Basic consumerism creates chemical responses effecting the brain pleasure center. High quality reproduction doesn’t have to take place, but only the possibility of reproduction triggers the pleasure response.

Head-fi is simply monkeys in a cage flicking the red lever a thousand times a day in hopes of getting that pleasure chemical response. Another reason why so many different products can be reported as perfectly-audiophile.

 

[pibroch]

1. In my opinion, we need to stop doing that because the term "fidelity" as applied to audio reproduction does NOT have a subjective sense! The fact that some/many audiophiles believe that it does, is essentially due to a relatively recent audiophile marketing tactic, which presents two problems: A. Every time we use the term "fidelity" we're going to have to explain which meaning we're talking about, or end-up with confusion and miscommunication and B. If we were to allow marketing tactics to redefine the already defined terms, then sound science itself would fall into utter chaos and largely cease to exist, and so would this forum.
1a. Yes but now we're talking about the science of psycho-acoustics, of how the brain works, not about physics, of how an electric current and sound waves work, two very different things in practise and two very different scientific fields. Audio reproduction is about the latter, implying it's about the former or actually trying to make products which address the former is highly problematic (practically, logically and in terms of the science and engineering) and also very undesirable, if high fidelity and reproducing artistic intent is the goal. Additionally, although what you say about "real live instruments" seems completely obvious and entirely logical, in practise it really isn't. This is because in practise we have the variables of microphone choice and positioning, plus the fact that the sound a musician/instrument actually produces is typically significantly different from what an audience/listener would expect it to sound like.

2. I'm even more surprised, because I would go a whole lot further. The recording/mixing process doesn't play a big part in creating this sense of realism, it is ENTIRELY responsible for it and therefore, how it was recorded/mixed doesn't "make about as much difference as the equipment", it should make ALL the difference and the equipment should make no difference whatsoever! This isn't necessarily the case in practise though, because consumer audio reproduction systems don't have perfect fidelity and therefore the equipment does make some but hopefully only a small difference. Bare in mind that without the mixing process there is no sound-stage at all and therefore no sound-stage for an audio reproduction system to reproduce.



1. That's something my peers and I have to deal with constantly and is one of the most challenging aspects of the job. I'm typically critically listening to recorded sound/music for at least 6 hours a day and sometimes as much as 12 hours a day. First thing I do when I fire the studio up in the morning is to check what I did the evening before and sometimes it's a serious shock, even to the point of wondering how on earth I could have done what I did, it's like it was mixed by a complete beginner or I was on some heavy mind altering drugs. Although there maybe some element of fatigued ears after so many hours, that's at best only a partial explanation. The real or main explanation is the way that hearing perception itself works. Let's say the night before I was working on a rock track and specifically on the snare drum. To do that I'm obviously focusing on the snare drum sound and what "focusing" actually means is that my brain is reducing the level of everything else (the kick, hi-hats, guitars, vocals, etc.) and emphasising the snare drum. I'm playing around with the EQ, reverb, compression or whatever other processing I'm applying to the snare drum, to get exactly the sound I want and pretty much without exception each of the processes alters the level of the snare drum to some extent, so I have to also constantly adjust the level/balance of the snare drum relative to the rest of the mix (the kick, guitars, vocals, etc.) but in the end, job done and I can move on or if it's the end of the day, go home. Next morning I check the mix, it's starting to rock but hang on, where's the snare drum gone, I can hardly hear it? All that time and effort fine tuning the snare drum sound the night before is wasted, what happened, did I forget to save it, do I have an auto back-up? No, the answer is in what I've already stated; when I was working on the snare drum I was focused on it and my brain was reducing the level of everything else and emphasising the level of the snare drum, so as I'm processing the snare drum and having to adjust it's level I'm balancing it against the kick, hi-hats, guitars, etc., but of course the level of these other instruments has been reduced by my brain and so I've gradually reduced the level of the snare drum to match this reduced level of the other instruments. Next morning with a clear head, I'm listening to the whole mix and not focused specifically on the snare drum and it's blatantly obvious it's mixed way too low, my work from the night before wasn't wasted I just need to double the level of the snare drum and all is well! Three points to consider: A. Every professional sound/music engineer I've ever heard of has encountered this phenomena, it's widely known and accepted. B. As the years have rolled by, I encounter this phenomena less and less frequently. I'm aware of how my perception is playing tricks on me and moderately accurately compensate and take some steps to help avoid it in the first place. C. Obviously, my situation is quite extreme compared to an audiophile. An audiophile is extremely unlikely to focus so intently on a single sonic element of a mix for such an extended period but nevertheless, the very definition of being an audiophile is focusing on fine details which most people aren't consciously aware they're hearing. So I have no doubt that this phenomena is playing a role and probably a very significant role, regardless of whether audiophiles themselves are aware of it!

2. I very much doubt that is actually the case. DA converters are nearly all built using chips which are only made by a handful of companies and all these chips (even the $2 ones) are very accurate and audibly flat. For a DA converter to be shy in the low mids, the maker must have deliberately changed the output of the DAC chip and specifically reduced the low mids, that's extra effort and cost, in a cheaper DAC and for what benefit? I'm not saying it's impossible, just extremely unlikely and it's far more likely the cause of less low-mids is elsewhere. Maybe one DAC has a lower output level and needs slightly more amplification? Have you tried level matching the amp's output with both DACs and checking if there's still a loss of low-mids? If so, maybe your amp is struggling at the higher level setting to drive your cans? There's several possibilities worth checking (including of course if it's just a perception bias) but the accuracy of the DA converter itself is about the last thing worth checking.

3. Hang on a minute, how do you know which is more accurate, how do you know if the music was designed to have that much low-mid and sound muddier or if it's supposed to have less and sound "dumbed down"?
3a. I'm not sure that statement is valid. Is it actually serving the music or is it only serving your preferences?
3b. Enjoyment being the main motivating factor I would agree with but the evidence tends to contradict the assertion of "musical enjoyment". In my experience, from what most audiophiles post and state, they get enjoyment more from the fine details of certain attributes of the mix, rather than from the music itself. They typically prize/enjoy details such as sound-stage, separation and various other factors, even to the detriment of the music itself! If musical enjoyment were the main motivating factor, then: A. Why wouldn't they be satisfied with the extremely high, near perfect fidelity of say an iPhone, which provides a near perfect reproduction of the electric current (and what it contains)? and B. Again, if their enjoyment really is "musical enjoyment", why do they have so little knowledge of music and so little interest in gaining any? All the evidence indicates: Enjoyment gained from the ownership and use of expensive audio reproduction equipment. There is no indication that the highest fidelity reproduction or music itself are the main factors or even appreciated at all!



I've effectively already answered this question. It is not a "good fit", since the goal of audio reproduction equipment is not to create an enjoyable subjective experience, it's to reproduce audio. The job of creating an enjoyable subjective experience is SOLELY down to the music creators/producers and there's masses of philosophy on that, going back many centuries. In fact, music creation/production is pretty much ONLY concerned about perception and philosophy! Isn't the job of audio reproduction equipment to reproduce that which has been produced?

G

Thanks Gregorio - have sent PM.

 

[Phronesis]

After a level of existence is achieved the human has time and resources for another level of life.........be it cars, stereos or whatever, the thoughts of pleasure can be strong.

A) Some members are closer to the equipment side.
B) Some members are closer to the music side.

The idea is that if well replayed music is pleasing, then better quality reproduction could be a more pleasured experience.


Perception is fickle, so when some report back about so and so, others jump in. After the group census then reports flaws, many jump ship. Perception can be walked around like a dog around town.

Basic consumerism creates chemical responses effecting the brain pleasure center. High quality reproduction doesn’t have to take place, but only the possibility of reproduction triggers the pleasure response.

Head-fi is simply monkeys in a cage flicking the red lever a thousand times a day in hopes of getting that pleasure chemical response. Another reason why so many different products can be reported as perfectly-audiophile.

Not a flattering portrayal, but like the picture, this seems to hit the bulls-eye.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I would just add, though, that I've found that the differences between DACs and amps are larger than I would have expected.
[2] I don't know if you've read the posts by Rob Watts from Chord; he has some interesting comments about how some technical aspects of design affect sound perception (especially related to timing and noise floor).
[3] Getting back to the original topic, it seems that the term 'audiophile' is somewhat vague and problematic ...
[4] What seems to be common to most people in this forum is an interest in equipment, but it seems that a minority here may be a lot more interested in music than equipment.

1. Interesting, I've found the exact opposite with blind testing.

2. Yes, I have read some posts by Rob Watts and found them more than interesting, staggering would be a better adjective! He clearly has some very severe misunderstandings (or doesn't and is deliberately lying), I remember him stating somewhere that he could hear/detect artefacts well below -200dBFS and even below -300dB in one post. However, that is plainly ridiculous if you have any understanding of what the decibel scale actually is and what the levels he's talking about actually represent. Even at -144dB (the theoretical limit of 24bit audio) we're talking about the approximate sound level produced by two hydrogen atoms colliding, -204dB is one thousand times lower than that and -304dB is one hundred million times lower! Someone should tell CERN about Rob Watts, I sure they'll be even more staggered than me, instead of spending billions to build the Large Hadron Collider they could've just asked Rob Watts to listen, at a cost of probably little more than a Starbucks! Some of his assertions in other areas are not quite as mind bogglingly ridiculous but they're not far off, maybe just laughably ridiculous or even only ridiculous.

3. Which is entirely logical if you think about it, as most of the terminology used by audiophiles is also somewhat vague and problematic!

4. I'm not even convinced that most people on Head-Fi are directly interested in even the equipment. Interested in the marketing claims of the equipment, interested in their own and others' subjective impression of the equipment and in the pride of ownership and use, sure, they're clearly interested in that but the equipment itself? Mmm, I'm not so sure! If they were interested in the equipment itself, wouldn't they embrace science, the actual facts, objective measurements and blind testing to determine the actual performance of the equipment? There's an old marketing adage/cliche: "Sell the sizzle, not the steak". It seems to me that many audiophiles' primary interest is the "sizzle" and not so much the "steak" itself.

G

 

[castleofargh]

I don't take issue with any of this.

I would just add, though, that I've found that the differences between DACs and amps are larger than I would have expected. I don't know if you've read the posts by Rob Watts from Chord; he has some interesting comments about how some technical aspects of design affect sound perception (especially related to timing and noise floor).

Getting back to the original topic, it seems that the term 'audiophile' is somewhat vague and problematic, since it encompasses people with a wide range of levels of interest in music, musical taste, technical background, background in music production and recording, etc. So my answer to the question of the psychology of audiophiles would very much depend on the specific 'audiophile' we're talking about. What seems to be common to most people in this forum is an interest in equipment, but it seems that a minority here may be a lot more interested in music than equipment.

I'm not sure what to make of someone having an intense interest in equipment. On one hand, finding a great combination of equipment and music can make for a sublime experience. On the other hand, obsession with equipment and sound (rather than music) can distract from enjoying music, and take up a lot of time and money, but maybe that's where the 'hobby' part comes in. Despite my having an interest in music for decades, almost all of the gear you see in my current signature was purchased within the past 6 months, after opening Spotify and Tidal accounts which make a vast amount of music easily accessible, and I can't really predict when I'll conclude that my equipment is 'good enough' and pay attention only to music (I have some older audio gear also, but have gotten away from buying CDs, and not really interested in going back to vinyl). By exploring psychology of audiophiles, I hoped to better understand myself, but I'm not sure that I've made much progress in that regard.

Rob is dangerous because when he knows the technical reason for something(and he sure knows a lot), he will explain it like it is. so we all tend to assume that what he says is true because so much of the technical stuff does check out. but as soon as he goes into attempts to link perception and objective variables, he seems to see causality only where he wishes to see it. and as he doesn't rely on blind testing much, we end up with some assumptions that I would bet my own life aren't true. like if something happening at -200dB and only down there, is causing an audible change in our perception of sound while listening to music, kill me now.

edit: lol Greg reacted like me.

 

[gregorio]

edit: lol Greg reacted like me.

Yep, how on earth did he manage to arrive at such an assertion? CERN could forget about colliding large hadrons, they wouldn't even need to collide small hadrons, just sit Rob Watts in a Starbucks late at night and he could probably hear a quark fart ... on the moon! Hey, if they did that on a cloudy night, would it count as a blind test?

G

 

[Phronesis]

1. Interesting, I've found the exact opposite with blind testing.

As I've noted in other threads, I came into this very skeptical that there was any audible difference between decent DACs and amps, as long as the amps had enough power to not go into clipping. But I've had a chance to compare the iPhone X, DF Red, Mojo, Hugo, Hugo 2, and McIntosh MA150 using various headphones, and have found significant differences between them, despite them all apparently measuring essentially flat on FR. My comparisons generally weren't based on blind testing, but I did find what strike me as obvious differences despite expecting not to find any differences. This is based on many trials, and, for example, the Mojo and Hugo 2 sound different to me even when I try to convince myself that they sound the same. Moreover, my subjective impressions from these comparisons are quite similar to what others have consistently reported, and I think that kind of intersubjective consistency counts as evidence (not 'proof', just evidence). I won't pretend to understand the technicalities of how these differences arise, but my impression is that there are real choices to be made in how D/A conversion is done which lead to different outcomes in terms of sound. That leads to the discussion below ...

2. Yes, I have read some posts by Rob Watts and found them more than interesting, staggering would be a better adjective! He clearly has some very severe misunderstandings (or doesn't and is deliberately lying), I remember him stating somewhere that he could hear/detect artefacts well below -200dBFS and even below -300dB in one post. However, that is plainly ridiculous if you have any understanding of what the decibel scale actually is and what the levels he's talking about actually represent. Even at -144dB (the theoretical limit of 24bit audio) we're talking about the approximate sound level produced by two hydrogen atoms colliding, -204dB is one thousand times lower than that and -304dB is one hundred million times lower! Someone should tell CERN about Rob Watts, I sure they'll be even more staggered than me, instead of spending billions to build the Large Hadron Collider they could've just asked Rob Watts to listen, at a cost of probably little more than a Starbucks! Some of his assertions in other areas are not quite as mind bogglingly ridiculous but they're not far off, maybe just laughably ridiculous or even only ridiculous.

Rob is dangerous because when he knows the technical reason for something(and he sure knows a lot), he will explain it like it is. so we all tend to assume that what he says is true because so much of the technical stuff does check out. but as soon as he goes into attempts to link perception and objective variables, he seems to see causality only where he wishes to see it. and as he doesn't rely on blind testing much, we end up with some assumptions that I would bet my own life aren't true. like if something happening at -200dB and only down there, is causing an audible change in our perception of sound while listening to music, kill me now.

edit: lol Greg reacted like me.

Has anyone challenged Rob's claims? If so, what was his response? Again, I'm no expert, but my impression is that Rob understands the engineering aspects quite well, and there may be merit to some of what he says regarding the links between perception and objective variables, even if he's wrong on some aspects of that. He comes across to me as sincere - even if he's wrong about some things - and IMO he should be given credit for posting in a forum like this and putting his cards on the table, knowing that there are many people who have the technical background to evaluate what he says.

Also, I think we need to remember that most of the cognitive processing of our brains occurs at a subconscious level, so there will be aspects to perception which will have a real cognitive/emotional effect on us, even though we're not aware of it and unable to get a handle on it at a conscious level. For example, I'm open to the possibility that our brains can register and be affected by high frequencies (as long as our ears can transduce those high frequencies), despite our not being able to consciously discern that we 'heard' those frequencies. As a measuring instrument, the brain has vexing complexity!

4. I'm not even convinced that most people on Head-Fi are directly interested in even the equipment. Interested in the marketing claims of the equipment, interested in their own and others' subjective impression of the equipment and in the pride of ownership and use, sure, they're clearly interested in that but the equipment itself? Mmm, I'm not so sure! If they were interested in the equipment itself, wouldn't they embrace science, the actual facts, objective measurements and blind testing to determine the actual performance of the equipment? There's an old marketing adage/cliche: "Sell the sizzle, not the steak". It seems to me that many audiophiles' primary interest is the "sizzle" and not so much the "steak" itself.

Since probably only a minority of head-fi people have a substantial background in science and/or engineering, that would limit them to a subjective and quasi-technical approach to equipment. Nothing really wrong with that IMO, except when people get duped.

 

[gregorio]

[1] My comparisons generally weren't based on blind testing, but I did find what strike me as obvious differences despite expecting not to find any differences.
[2] Has anyone challenged Rob's claims? If so, what was his response?
[2a] Again, I'm no expert, but my impression is that Rob understands the engineering aspects quite well, and
[2b] there may be merit to some of what he says regarding the links between perception and objective variables, even if he's wrong on some aspects of that.
[2c] He comes across to me as sincere -
[2d] ... and IMO he should be given credit for posting in a forum like this and putting his cards on the table ...
[3] Also, I think we need to remember that most of the cognitive processing of our brains occurs at a subconscious level, so there will be aspects to perception which will have a real cognitive/emotional effect on us, even though we're not aware of it and unable to get a handle on it at a conscious level.
[4] Since probably only a minority of head-fi people have a substantial background in science and/or engineering, that would limit them to a subjective and quasi-technical approach to equipment. Nothing really wrong with that IMO, except when people get duped.

1. As you say later, most of the processing in our brains occurs at a subconscious level, so even what you consciously expect is only a small part of perception bias. Plus, it's been known for many decades and is easily demonstrated that we can perceive/hear extremely obvious differences where in fact there are none whatsoever (the McGurk Effect for example). Also, it's entirely possible an iPhone could sound markedly different from another DAC/Amp with various headphones, as it's underpowered for some headphones. I haven't tested or even heard the iPhone X though, the last time I tested an iPhone was when it still had a 3.5mm output.

2. I wrote quite a detailed response to a slide presentation of he posted, but here in the science forum and I doubt he knows it exists. Directly refuting him on any other forum here would be a serious risk, he's an advertiser here on Head-Fi and any dispute with him would quickly result in a ban.
2a. There's nothing wrong with his products, except they're hugely overpriced, so he must have a decent understanding of engineering but then again, how can you have a good understanding of engineering if you don't know how the dB scales works or what it represents?
2b. He doesn't get everything so absolutely wrong but a surprising amount is wrong and most is at least somewhat wrong. I haven't read loads/all of his posts, so maybe I'm doing him too much of a disservice but from what I have seen, he'd be in the first batch of those scheduled for the guillotine, come the revolution against pseudo-science and marketing BS!
2c. He does come across as sincere, so either he's just good at acting sincere or he really is that ignorant.
2d. But he doesn't post in this (sub) forum, ever as far as I'm aware. Only in the other sub-forums where the actual facts/science are often actively discouraged. I would be impressed with his bravery if he headed for say the Hydrogen Audio forum, I'd also be impressed by the shiny, bright new one he'd instantly get ripped!

3. Speaking for myself, that's not something I need to remember, as my job entirely relies on it! As a Sound Designer, almost everything I do is directly related to creating cognitive/emotional effects at the subconscious level.

4. Much of the time though, you don't need a "substantial background in science and/or engineering", a high school background is usually enough, plus a healthy dose of scepticism. I've had heated discussions here which hinged on middle school science. Fairly basic facts such as "what is digital data?" and even in this thread, I've had to repeat and explain several times that it's ultimately just an electric current, amplitude and frequency, middle school science. However, that healthy dose of scepticism is vital because these simple basic facts have been so clouded, shrouded and obfuscated by marketing (and the likes of Rob Watts), that many can no longer see that we're actually talking about middle school level science/facts!

G

 

[castleofargh]

As I've noted in other threads, I came into this very skeptical that there was any audible difference between decent DACs and amps, as long as the amps had enough power to not go into clipping. But I've had a chance to compare the iPhone X, DF Red, Mojo, Hugo, Hugo 2, and McIntosh MA150 using various headphones, and have found significant differences between them, despite them all apparently measuring essentially flat on FR. My comparisons generally weren't based on blind testing, but I did find what strike me as obvious differences despite expecting not to find any differences. This is based on many trials, and, for example, the Mojo and Hugo 2 sound different to me even when I try to convince myself that they sound the same. Moreover, my subjective impressions from these comparisons are quite similar to what others have consistently reported, and I think that kind of intersubjective consistency counts as evidence (not 'proof', just evidence). I won't pretend to understand the technicalities of how these differences arise, but my impression is that there are real choices to be made in how D/A conversion is done which lead to different outcomes in terms of sound. That leads to the discussion below ...





Has anyone challenged Rob's claims? If so, what was his response? Again, I'm no expert, but my impression is that Rob understands the engineering aspects quite well, and there may be merit to some of what he says regarding the links between perception and objective variables, even if he's wrong on some aspects of that. He comes across to me as sincere - even if he's wrong about some things - and IMO he should be given credit for posting in a forum like this and putting his cards on the table, knowing that there are many people who have the technical background to evaluate what he says.

Also, I think we need to remember that most of the cognitive processing of our brains occurs at a subconscious level, so there will be aspects to perception which will have a real cognitive/emotional effect on us, even though we're not aware of it and unable to get a handle on it at a conscious level. For example, I'm open to the possibility that our brains can register and be affected by high frequencies (as long as our ears can transduce those high frequencies), despite our not being able to consciously discern that we 'heard' those frequencies. As a measuring instrument, the brain has vexing complexity!



Since probably only a minority of head-fi people have a substantial background in science and/or engineering, that would limit them to a subjective and quasi-technical approach to equipment. Nothing really wrong with that IMO, except when people get duped.

there is nothing to challenge. everything we know about human hearing disagrees with his assumption. he's wrong about this he's wrong to easily dismiss blind testing, and we have no reason to think he's not. this has nothing to do with him being a cool dude, or a good engineer.

but let's try to be constructive instead of just trying to force my position by saying it is so:
0dB SPL is by definition the quietest sound a human can hear(that's supposedly how it is defined in the first place). this of course is a general idea, like the 20hz-20khz for humans. it's supposed to be an average but it's an optimistic one considering the current human population with a median age around 30. how many 30 year old and older will hear 20khz or 0dB SPL? not many, yet above 30 is half the population. so count 0dB SPL as an optimistic value of what we can hear.
in any case, with a pure tone at the most sensitive frequency under ideal conditions, some people are able to detect as low as about -10dB SPL if I remember some paper on the subject correctly. so let's be overly optimistic, and assume that Rob who's not a teen anymore, can also still detect -10dB SPL which he most likely can't.
now for the maximum level.120dB SPL is when we start to hurt. but once again, let's go for optimism and add and extra 20dB, because why not damage our ears to try and prove that we have great hearing dynamic.

we arrive at 150dB of dynamic for a dream case that probably doesn't exist. just to get our speakers or headphones to reach 140dB SPL without complains might not be given to everybody.
now remove the anechoic chamber(oops). include music being played mostly in the 40dB closest to the max loudness you can stand, now we have auditory masking added to the game. anytime a loud sound is heard, there is like a cone of masking for other quieter sounds at frequencies directly next to the loud sound. also let's not forget the ear protection mechanism that will be triggered somewhere around 70dB SPL and above depending on people, which will effectively dampen the eardrum and reduce our sensitivity by about 15dB I believe(I'm really unsure about that number). add the noises in the room for extra fun, probably around 20dB SPL in a really quiet room.
there are even more ways a sound can evade detection even while within the hearing range. at low or high frequencies our sensitivity sucks bad compared to the midrange, no dream of -10dB SPL being perceived, we're far from that. a short stimulus (a few ms) might need to be a good 10db or more louder than the same sound we could notice over a long duration. all of those things can and will have an impact.
so now of our optimistic dream dynamic range of 150dB, only the dream part remains. you'll be lucky if you get 120dB of dynamic under ideal conditions, or more than 80dB most of the time playing music at your preferred loudness wherever it is you usually do it.

so stuff happening -200dB or wherever below music changing how we hear the music. not happening, ever.

 

[gregorio]

so stuff happening -200dB or wherever below music changing how we hear the music. not happening, ever.

Maybe my talk of sub-atomic particles was too esoteric, so we could look at it the other way around. Let's say we've got a recording which as standard peaks around 0dBFS and had an artefact at -300dBFS. Let's amplify that artefact so it's a just audible 0dBSPL, and therefore the peak of our piece of music is going to be 300dBSPL. We can in fact generate and experience 300dBSPL, you just need to sit about 50 meters away from a one megaton hydrogen bomb explosion. Now maybe I'm not a hardcore audiophile but when that meter hits 0dBFS I don't want every molecule in my body to be instantly vaporised, but that's just me!

G

 

[ev13wt]

But, but.... its still there. Its mudding up the capabilities my system could have.
It has do be dealt with in the amplifier. So it has to do more work! /irony off

 

[Phronesis]

1. As you say later, most of the processing in our brains occurs at a subconscious level, so even what you consciously expect is only a small part of perception bias. Plus, it's been known for many decades and is easily demonstrated that we can perceive/hear extremely obvious differences where in fact there are none whatsoever (the McGurk Effect for example). Also, it's entirely possible an iPhone could sound markedly different from another DAC/Amp with various headphones, as it's underpowered for some headphones. I haven't tested or even heard the iPhone X though, the last time I tested an iPhone was when it still had a 3.5mm output.

I do think part of the issue with the iPhone is being underpowered for some headphones (eg, LCD-3).

I acknowledge my fallibility as a listener, but I also don't simply dismiss the results of my listening tests, especially when those results have gone against my expectations, and are consistent with what other listeners have reported. In the end, I think we each have to weigh the evidence available to us to make our judgments, and uncertainty can't be entirely eliminated. Subjective experience is part of the evidence, even if it's fallible. Theoretical arguments are also certainly part of that evidence, but I don't think our theoretical models are complete enough to make conclusive statements when we bring the complexity of psychoacoustics into the picture.

Regarding blind testing, I started out doing some of that, but soon realized that it has its own pitfalls associated with level matching, music sample matching, reliance on memory, effects of duration of listening, variations in concentration level, lack of access to subconscious effects, etc. It's much more complex than cases where what is being measured is readily observable and inherently quantitative (e.g., blood pressure) rather than highly qualitative.

3. Speaking for myself, that's not something I need to remember, as my job entirely relies on it! As a Sound Designer, almost everything I do is directly related to creating cognitive/emotional effects at the subconscious level.

Just saw your profile: "Music Producer, Composer, Audio Engineer, Audio Post Production." Yes, I see your point!

2. I wrote quite a detailed response to a slide presentation of he posted, but here in the science forum and I doubt he knows it exists. Directly refuting him on any other forum here would be a serious risk, he's an advertiser here on Head-Fi and any dispute with him would quickly result in a ban.
2a. There's nothing wrong with his products, except they're hugely overpriced, so he must have a decent understanding of engineering but then again, how can you have a good understanding of engineering if you don't know how the dB scales works or what it represents?
2b. He doesn't get everything so absolutely wrong but a surprising amount is wrong and most is at least somewhat wrong. I haven't read loads/all of his posts, so maybe I'm doing him too much of a disservice but from what I have seen, he'd be in the first batch of those scheduled for the guillotine, come the revolution against pseudo-science and marketing BS!
2c. He does come across as sincere, so either he's just good at acting sincere or he really is that ignorant.
2d. But he doesn't post in this (sub) forum, ever as far as I'm aware. Only in the other sub-forums where the actual facts/science are often actively discouraged. I would be impressed with his bravery if he headed for say the Hydrogen Audio forum, I'd also be impressed by the shiny, bright new one he'd instantly get ripped!

there is nothing to challenge. everything we know about human hearing disagrees with his assumption. he's wrong about this he's wrong to easily dismiss blind testing, and we have no reason to think he's not. this has nothing to do with him being a cool dude, or a good engineer.

but let's try to be constructive instead of just trying to force my position by saying it is so:
0dB SPL is by definition the quietest sound a human can hear(that's supposedly how it is defined in the first place). this of course is a general idea, like the 20hz-20khz for humans. it's supposed to be an average but it's an optimistic one considering the current human population with a median age around 30. how many 30 year old and older will hear 20khz or 0dB SPL? not many, yet above 30 is half the population. so count 0dB SPL as an optimistic value of what we can hear.
in any case, with a pure tone at the most sensitive frequency under ideal conditions, some people are able to detect as low as about -10dB SPL if I remember some paper on the subject correctly. so let's be overly optimistic, and assume that Rob who's not a teen anymore, can also still detect -10dB SPL which he most likely can't.
now for the maximum level.120dB SPL is when we start to hurt. but once again, let's go for optimism and add and extra 20dB, because why not damage our ears to try and prove that we have great hearing dynamic.

we arrive at 150dB of dynamic for a dream case that probably doesn't exist. just to get our speakers or headphones to reach 140dB SPL without complains might not be given to everybody.
now remove the anechoic chamber(oops). include music being played mostly in the 40dB closest to the max loudness you can stand, now we have auditory masking added to the game. anytime a loud sound is heard, there is like a cone of masking for other quieter sounds at frequencies directly next to the loud sound. also let's not forget the ear protection mechanism that will be triggered somewhere around 70dB SPL and above depending on people, which will effectively dampen the eardrum and reduce our sensitivity by about 15dB I believe(I'm really unsure about that number). add the noises in the room for extra fun, probably around 20dB SPL in a really quiet room.
there are even more ways a sound can evade detection even while within the hearing range. at low or high frequencies our sensitivity sucks bad compared to the midrange, no dream of -10dB SPL being perceived, we're far from that. a short stimulus (a few ms) might need to be a good 10db or more louder than the same sound we could notice over a long duration. all of those things can and will have an impact.
so now of our optimistic dream dynamic range of 150dB, only the dream part remains. you'll be lucky if you get 120dB of dynamic under ideal conditions, or more than 80dB most of the time playing music at your preferred loudness wherever it is you usually do it.

so stuff happening -200dB or wherever below music changing how we hear the music. not happening, ever.

In my position as a newcomer who hasn't read all the posts you guys refer to, it's hard to draw any conclusions regarding what to believe about Rob's expertise. Ideally, there would be threads where Rob made his claims and supporting arguments, you guys presented your challenges directly to him, and we get to see how the ensuing debate unfolds. It's also possible that he's designed products which provide superior performance, partly through a trial and error process, even if he's misunderstood some of the technical issues and their links to perception.

4. Much of the time though, you don't need a "substantial background in science and/or engineering", a high school background is usually enough, plus a healthy dose of scepticism. I've had heated discussions here which hinged on middle school science. Fairly basic facts such as "what is digital data?" and even in this thread, I've had to repeat and explain several times that it's ultimately just an electric current, amplitude and frequency, middle school science. However, that healthy dose of scepticism is vital because these simple basic facts have been so clouded, shrouded and obfuscated by marketing (and the likes of Rob Watts), that many can no longer see that we're actually talking about middle school level science/facts!

Beware of the 'curse of knowledge': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge. IMO, the science and engineering aspects aren't simple, especially when we go beyond electronics to mechanical, acoustic, and psychoacoustic aspects. So I don't really fault people for not trying to understand the technical aspects of how their toys work. I do fault people for knowingly hyping products which are way overpriced and/or deliver little or no performance benefit.

A more general point: even in the realm of electrical signals, it seems to me that the only way we could conclusively say that signal X is the same as signal Y, other than an amplitude scaling difference, is to use a normal complex musical signal (not just a few frequencies) which has normal transient changes, and do a point by point comparison of the signal amplitudes using an extremely small time increment. The differences would somehow need to be quantified by distortion indices. Do any existing measurements do anything like that?

 

[gregorio]

[1] I acknowledge my fallibility as a listener, [1a] but I also don't simply dismiss the results of my listening tests, [1b] especially when those results have gone against my expectations, [1c] and are consistent with what other listeners have reported.
In the end, I think we each have to weigh the evidence available to us to make our judgments, and uncertainty can't be entirely eliminated. Subjective experience is part of the evidence, even if it's fallible. Theoretical arguments are also certainly part of that evidence, but I don't think our theoretical models are complete enough to make conclusive statements when we bring the complexity of psychoacoustics into the picture.
[2] Regarding blind testing, I started out doing some of that, but soon realized that it has its own pitfalls associated with level matching, music sample matching, reliance on memory, effects of duration of listening, variations in concentration level, [2a] ... lack of access to subconscious effects, etc.
[3] In my position as a newcomer who hasn't read all the posts you guys refer to, it's hard to draw any conclusions regarding what to believe about Rob's expertise.
[4] It's also possible that he's designed products which provide superior performance, partly through a trial and error process, even if he's misunderstood some of the technical issues and their links to perception.
[5] IMO, the science and engineering aspects aren't simple, [5a] especially when we go beyond electronics to mechanical, acoustic, and psychoacoustic aspects.
[5b] So I don't really fault people for not trying to understand the technical aspects of how their toys work.

1. That is certainly a good step forward from many audiophiles, who not only openly state they "trust their ears" but often mock those who don't. However, that's still only a step forward, there are in fact further steps and without exception (as far as I'm aware) everyone who either mixes sound and/or blind tests sound quickly learns that their hearing perception is more fallible than they realised AND, this learning continues almost ad infinitum! By this I mean that even after significant testing experience and realising how fallible our hearing is, further testing experience reveals even more/deeper fallibility. However, I'm not entirely comfortable using the term "fallible", fallible in terms of an objective measuring device, in terms of representing the fidelity of the sound waves entering our ears, sure, highly "fallible". On the other hand, without that "fallibility" there would be no such thing as music and even our very survival as a species would have been impacted. So, it's not really a "fallibility", it's a strength, a desirable, even a necessary evolutionary trait, except if we want to use it to accurately measure the actual properties of a sound wave and, the same is true of our sight and other senses.
1a. It obviously depends on what we're testing for. For example, are we testing for a property of sound waves or a property of perception? And, "fallibility" doesn't mean that we are necessarily wrong, just that we are capable of being wrong. In other words, we don't "simply dismiss the results" of sighted listening tests! In fact, my job would be impossible if I didn't mainly rely on sighted listening tests. The only time we do "simply dismiss the results" is when we're talking about an actual property of sound waves AND, when the results conflict with the known facts/science of those properties. Going back to Rob Watts claim for example, -300dBFS represents an energy level that probably isn't enough to move even a single air molecule, let alone move the countless billions of air molecules necessary to propagate an actual sound wave. So it's not a question of how good/sensitive Rob Watts or anyone else's ears are, there's no sound wave there to hear!
1b. You mean results have gone against your conscious expectations. You state in one post that we have to remember that most of the brain's cognitive processing occurs at the sub-conscious level and then in almost the very next breath make an assertion which completely forgets the very fact which you've just informed us we have to remember!?
1c. That's a common fallacy which is often used by audiophiles. Effectively: It's not just me, numerous others have heard/reported a difference (with cables, DACs, etc.). Did you watch the link to the McGurk Effect I posted (McGurk Effect)? Probably more people heard the difference in this video than there are audiophiles on the planet! Should we not therefore consider all this evidence (that there is an audible difference) as more reliable/valuable and acceptable than any evidence the audiophile community could come up with? Do you therefore accept all this evidence (that there is an audible difference in the video) and if not, why not?

2. I can't see how this assertion is valid. "It's own pitfalls" (of blind testing) is NOT it's OWN pitfalls, ALL of them are also pitfalls of sighted testing! The fact that sighted testing simply ignores all those pitfalls doesn't mean they don't exist.
2a. If we're testing an actual property of sound waves, the "lack of access to subconscious effects" isn't a "pitfall", it's the whole point of a blind test to begin with! The ONLY time a "lack of access to subconscious effects" would be a pitfall is if we were actually testing for those subconscious effects!

3. From a scientific/factual point of view, it's not "hard to draw any conclusions", a high school level of understanding the decibel scale should be enough. What could make it hard is a lack of scepticism (a willingness to believe) in what Rob Watts is stating and therefore whether one bothers to recall one's high school education or of course, if one never had that high school education to start with.

4. That is certainly possible and may be the case. Although I can't rule out the possibility that he does in fact understand the technicalities but is deliberately misrepresenting them for marketing purposes, especially as we talking about such a fundamental technicality (the dB scale).

5. Agreed, the aspects of science and engineering of how the technology works is not at all simple, especially if we're talking about individual products, where even an expert might not know exactly how it works because some of that information could easily be a commercial secret. However, this typically isn't relevant! Because ...
5a. But, we don't need to go beyond electronics to "mechanical, acoustics", except in the case of transducers. And again, psychoacoustics/perception is not in the realm of audio reproduction equipment, that's the realm of those creating the audio to be reproduced.
5c. I agree but then, for the vast majority of audiophile myths and disputes, they don't need to know all the technicalities of how the equipment works, just a few basic principles. For example, there are numerous different ways and complex scientific and engineering technicalities of digital audio conversion. On the other hand, all digital audio converters must operate within the fundamental tenets/laws of digital data otherwise, by definition, they are not digital audio converters. So, we can dismiss any claim/assertion that breaks the fundamental tenets of digital data only by knowing those fundamental tenets and without having to know all the technicalities of how a particular converter works.

A more general point: even in the realm of electrical signals, it seems to me that the only way we could conclusively say that signal X is the same as signal Y, other than an amplitude scaling difference, is to use a normal complex musical signal (not just a few frequencies) which has normal transient changes, and do a point by point comparison of the signal amplitudes using an extremely small time increment. The differences would somehow need to be quantified by distortion indices. Do any existing measurements do anything like that?

1. What you've described is effectively the definition of digital audio! A point by point measurement of complex signal amplitudes using an extremely small time increment.
2. However, to conclusively say that signal X is the same as signal Y, we do NOT have to do what you are suggesting. There is a far older, simpler and widely used test, the Null Test. We simply invert the phase of signal X (so it's -X) and sum/mix it with signal Y. So, we've got "-X + Y". If the result is zero (null), then X = Y, X must be the same as Y, no matter how simple or complex the signals are! Quick, easy and probably as old as audio recording itself!

G