[Dr. Strangelove]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taikero /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, why wouldn't you trust your ears? Isn't this hobby about what you hear?

Trusting your ears is not a problem, trusting them over highly sensitive measuring equipment when the extremes of difference in decibels is most likely below the sensitivity of the human ear, is foolish IMO.

 

[Taikero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove /img/forum/go_quote.gif Trusting your ears is not a problem, trusting them over highly sensitive measuring equipment when the extremes of difference in decibels is most likely below the sensitivity of the human ear, is foolish IMO.

That's only if you can absolutely guarantee you're using all the measuring equipment necessary to judge that the difference is indeed that small once the signal enters the air, hits the ear, and gets redirected and transformed by the brain.

If so, then yes I 100% agree with you.

However, I highly doubt that. What I do believe is that current sound science doesn't replace the human ear.

To this day, the best MP3 codec (as well as any good lossy codec, be it audio or video) has been programmed by virtue of listening to files encoded with it, not by running the results through some advanced algorithm that says "frequency response is golden, you may release now". If something doesn't sound right, a number of algorithms are given a shot until one sounds right, not until the numbers come out looking pretty or making sense on some technical printout.

Science takes you far, let's not discount it. However, there's a lot that current science can't and doesn't explain, especially where human perception and interpretation is concerned.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove /img/forum/go_quote.gif Trusting your ears is not a problem, trusting them over highly sensitive measuring equipment when the extremes of difference in decibels is most likely below the sensitivity of the human ear, is foolish IMO.

And by the time you did all that crap you could have tried a few cables to see how they work for you.

The key (listen up now) is to listen to your system for a few months, then add a new peice of equipment (cable, cd player, etc.) and then it will be easy to assertain what the one peice did for your system. You follow? Music is complex and people who throw a system together and swap out cables every ten minutes are always going to be lost in the sauce. It just doesnt work that way. Long periods of time between part changes is the best and only way.

Quote:

I spent the last year farting with cables and the last six months tube rolling and one thing I learned is quick A-B testing does nothing but add confusion and force a quick decision. When buying a new input tube (Makes the most difference in the sound signature) I would install the new tube and listen and then replace the old tube back into the amp. This did nothing but confuse me as I could hear a difference but I could not tell exactly what that difference was. Spending more time with each tube afforded me a much better understanding of what each different tube sounds like and what it has to offer as far as the sound signature. When I bought my Dac I could tell the difference between non-upsampling and 24/192 but I was unable to tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 until I had the Dac for about a month and listening to my favorite tracks. Here is a Monet painting I chose because it is complex. If I made some subtle changes, nothing big mind you, would hanging this painting on the wall in the living room for a month or two increase your chances of discovering the changes as apposed to doing an A-B comparison where I flashed pictures at you and asked you to pick out the altered picture? I submit to all the Blind testing people that they are right, blind A-B testing usually confuses people and makes it very hard to make an educated choice. Stereo equipment however, is something we live with and spend many many hours with and I think giving a piece of equipment a fair shot at pleasing you in the long run is so much more productive than dismissing said equipment based on quick decisions. I think this is why so many people do so much equipment swapping, "I bought the AKG 701's for the third time" is a common thing to read in the forums. Anyone can fool people by forcing a rash decision, there is no Science there. I offer these opinions in the hope that some of the nay-sayers might take the time to consider good cables as they had and continue to have a great impact on my listening experience. Thats all I can offer the people in this thread.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taikero /img/forum/go_quote.gif To this day, the best MP3 codec (as well as any good lossy codec, be it audio or video) has been programmed by virtue of listening to files encoded with it, not by running the results through some advanced algorithm that says "frequency response is golden, you may release now". If something doesn't sound right, a number of algorithms are given a shot until one sounds right, not until the numbers come out looking pretty or making sense on some technical printout.

Could you cite a source for your knowledge about the MP3 codec? I highly disagree with what you have said.

Though it does not matter as MP3 was designed to delete information that the ear is unable to record or the person cannot perceive: all they would have to do is agree that it sounded the same as lossless and it would do it's job. That does not mean it is of the same fidelity as lossless however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif You follow?

Yes, I understand your argument quite well. However I disagree with your reasoning. That is why this debate is going on in the first place: perfect reasoning in your mind does not equate to people believing you.

 

[Taikero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove /img/forum/go_quote.gif Could you cite a source for your knowledge about the MP3 codec? I highly disagree with what you have said. Though it does not matter as MP3 was designed to delete information that the ear is unable to record or the person cannot perceive: all they would have to do is agree that it sounded the same as lossless and it would do it's job. That does not mean it is of the same fidelity as lossless however.

Here's information on one part of the LAME project, which is "rigorously tested through listening tests." Heck, if you want proof that listening tests are considered important (and algorithms don't tell you everything about how something sounds), just go frequent the Hydrogen Audio forums for a while.

LAME MP3 Encoder :: GPSYCHO - A LGPL'd Psycho-Acoustic Model


Additionally, cables aren't "lossless", and the longer the cable becomes the more signal gets lost (apparently a very small loss as far as measuring equipment is concerned). People hear this difference all the time. Are they all wrong because the measuring equipment says they shouldn't be able to hear the difference, or is the measuring equipment not measuring for the right thing?

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taikero /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's information on one part of the LAME project, which is "rigorously tested through listening tests." Heck, if you want proof that listening tests are considered important (and algorithms don't tell you everything about how something sounds), just go frequent the Hydrogen Audio forums for a while.

Ah, my mistake. I took what you said as "They designed MP3 with using their ears".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taikero /img/forum/go_quote.gif Additionally, cables aren't "lossless", and the longer the cable becomes the more signal gets lost (apparently a very small loss as far as measuring equipment is concerned). People hear this difference all the time. Are they all wrong because the measuring equipment says they shouldn't be able to hear the difference, or is the measuring equipment not measuring for the right thing?

That is correct, they are not lossless. What I claim is that the ear is unable to record the difference. And yes they would be wrong if the right equipment "said so". Just like we are wrong if we think there is an area of our vision that does not "see light".

As for measuring the right thing... I am pretty sure if an experiment was carried out by professionals they would know what to measure for.

 

[Taikero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah, my mistake. I took what you said as "They designed MP3 with using their ears".

The MP3 standard is simply an evolution of algorithms developed by trial and error through listening to the output of those algorithms.

So yes, that's actually kind of accurate.

Quote:

As for measuring the right thing... I am pretty sure if an experiment was carried out by professionals they would know what to measure for.

Color me skeptical now, but where and when has a professional proved there is an audible difference or not with respect to a replica model of a set of human ears that's guaranteed to interpret the incoming data the same way the human brain does?

As has been said before, frequency response is only a small part of the entire equation, a snapshot in time, if you will. What matters is how the frequency response of many sound waves hits our ears with specific timing and how our brain interprets that sound over time, something that is particularly difficult to model with current technology. If what you are getting at were possible, I am of the extremely strong opinion there would be fewer audio companies in business today.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taikero /img/forum/go_quote.gif Color me skeptical now, but where and when has a professional proved there is an audible difference or not with respect to a replica model of a set of human ears that's guaranteed to interpret the incoming data the same way the human brain does?

Here is the flaw in your reasoning: nothing here matters but the sound pressure waves. Those are the cause for all effects we feel from audio. If those are different, then our experience is different. We can measure sound pressure waves.

 

[Taikero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here is the flaw in your reasoning: nothing here matters but the sound pressure waves. Those are the cause for all effects we feel from audio. If those are different, then our experience is different. We can measure sound pressure waves.

I contest that perhaps our measurements of sound pressure waves are inadequate and don't represent what a person actually hears.

In my experience, nobody hears what I hear, and I don't hear what another person hears. A sound that might be harsh to me is soothing to another. What might be engaging and warm to me is bloated, unnatural, and dark to someone else.

What I'm saying is that since our measurements don't reflect what people are hearing, our measurements aren't telling us the entire story.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taikero /img/forum/go_quote.gif I contest that perhaps our measurements of sound pressure waves are inadequate and don't represent what a person actually hears. In my experience, nobody hears what I hear, and I don't hear what another person hears. A sound that might be harsh to me is soothing to another. What might be engaging and warm to me is bloated, unnatural, and dark to someone else. What I'm saying is that since our measurements don't reflect what people are hearing, our measurements aren't telling us the entire story.

You are missing the point of the debate: do higher priced cables make a difference in sound quality detectable by the human ear vs. a budget cable? We can measure how much sound pressure it takes to move the ear drum enough to fire the neurons to let the brain know that this sound has good "bass extension". If said waves do not effect the ear enough for it to record a measurement, then the cable cannot be said to cause a difference in one's hearing.

Perception and interpretation of sound have nothing to do with how the ear physically measures sound pressure waves.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are missing the point of the debate: do higher priced cables make a difference in sound quality detectable by the human ear vs. a budget cable? We can measure how much sound pressure it takes to move the ear drum enough to fire the neurons to let the brain know that this sound has good "bass extension". If said waves do not effect the ear enough for it to record a measurement, then the cable cannot be said to cause a difference in one's hearing. Perception and interpretation of sound have nothing to do with how the ear physically measures sound pressure waves.

And your technical mumbo jumbo has nothing to do with evaluating audio equipment properly.

 

[MadMan007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taikero /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's information on one part of the LAME project, which is "rigorously tested through listening tests." Heck, if you want proof that listening tests are considered important (and algorithms don't tell you everything about how something sounds), just go frequent the Hydrogen Audio forums for a while. LAME MP3 Encoder :: GPSYCHO - A LGPL'd Psycho-Acoustic Model Additionally, cables aren't "lossless", and the longer the cable becomes the more signal gets lost (apparently a very small loss as far as measuring equipment is concerned). People hear this difference all the time. Are they all wrong because the measuring equipment says they shouldn't be able to hear the difference, or is the measuring equipment not measuring for the right thing?

One thing about Hydrogen Audio is it generally promotes ABX testing which is a scientific way to test non-scientific things, such as when people poopoo measurements as not measuring the right thing or how they 'really hear.'

 

[Taikero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perception and interpretation of sound have nothing to do with how the ear physically measures sound pressure waves.

Exactly! So how then can a measurement of sound pressure waves tell me what I hear?

EDIT: My eyes are telling me it's late, so I'm sleeping now and continuing this in the morning or evening...whenever.

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMan007 /img/forum/go_quote.gif One thing about Hydrogen Audio is it generally promotes ABX testing which is a scientific way to test non-scientific things, such as when people poopoo measurements as not measuring the right thing or how they 'really hear.'

ABX testing is like nipples on a male hog. Its an exercize in confusion.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f21/wh...ml#post5403024

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taikero /img/forum/go_quote.gif Exactly! So how then can a measurement of sound pressure waves tell me what I hear?

Id like to get an answer on this one too?