What is this? No golden ears!

[krabapple]

I thought that was a chromosome spread (karyotype).

A male karyotype, so definitely correct for this thread (and forum)

 

[DanielT]

He he.

Incidentally, Seinfeld is on the trail of discover a mystery.By the way, I have given up solving that. I buy new socks instead.

 

[mhardy6647]

A male karyotype, so definitely correct for this thread (and forum)

I am rolling on the floor here.

 

[krabapple]

"WHAT is the DEAL with audible CDP differences?" , said Seinfeld, never. Comedy GOLD, Jerry, you left unmined!

 

[DanielT]

A male karyotype, so definitely correct for this thread (and forum)

"WHAT is the DEAL with audible CDP differences?" , said Seinfeld, never. Comedy GOLD, Jerry, you left unmined!

 

[kongwee]

SDM DAC from both that why.

 

[JRS]

I compared ripping CD's to flac and high bitrate mp4. Absolutly no difference. I still rip to flac, just to talk to myself, thats the original.And who cares today about some Gbyte more memory? I did recordings with 44/16 vs 96/24 of natural instruments. No differences.

For me its funny reading that BS about differences of usb cables. And how crazy people get about speaker cables. The hifi world is a circus. Best is get some experience and than look at it with enough distance and have some fun.

A year late, but just to reassure you that a similar test was available for free. Involved downloads of same music. Listen all you want. Then when ready real test begins. 1000+ folk tried and only three better than p=0.05 (which is weird as chance suggests that there be many more). Nevertheless results have been replicated by others. Essentially conclusion is that Redbook may not have been perfect, but properly implemented is plenty good. Hell 320k is difficult to differentiate. Here and there sudvrptible passages with repeated listening by mere mortals can be . The golden eared individusls who with practice can do somewhat to much better. But everyone should try it--might save some cash and needless fretting.

And for those wondering about sampling errors, most self identified as enthusiasts/audiophiles.

 

[tomtoo]

A year late, but just to reassure you that a similar test was available for free. Involved downloads of same music. Listen all you want. Then when ready real test begins. 1000+ folk tried and only three better than p=0.05 (which is weird as chance suggests that there be many more). Nevertheless results have been replicated by others. Essentially conclusion is that Redbook may not have been perfect, but properly implemented is plenty good. Hell 320k is difficult to differentiate. Here and there sudvrptible passages with repeated listening by mere mortals can be . The golden eared individusls who with practice can do somewhat to much better. But everyone should try it--might save some cash and needless fretting.

And for those wondering about sampling errors, most self identified as enthusiasts/audiophiles.

If its so hard to hear a difference (if) with 100% attention, it makes at least for me no sense to push money in it. Couse i listen to music with much more attention to the music than to minor technical details that i not realy get if i put 100% attention to them.

 

[DanielT]

Speaking of blind tests and psychology. An, quite obvious, aspect that should be taken into account. If you participate, carry out a blind test with the attitude that youy will NOT hear any difference, then you probably won't do it either. That aspect is taken by Thorsten Loesch in #352, page 18 of this thread:

Replace OP amps. Completely pointless, or not?

Even Mr.(aptly named considering we're on ASR) Dolby was blinded by science. These women, just saying.:D So far, the best post in the thread.

audiosciencereview.com

Then there is a discussion about about that aspect in that thread.
(you can skip the technical aspects of OP-amps, if there is no interest in it, and just read about this with blind tests in that thread)

Thorsten Loesch refers, among other things, to:

Menschen hören das, was sie zu hören erwarten

Dresdner Neurowissenschaftler:innen zeigen, dass die menschliche Hörbahn Geräusche entsprechend vorheriger Erwartungen widergibt. Die Ergebnisse sind jetzt in der renommierten Fachzeitschrift eLife veröffentlicht worden.

tu-dresden.de

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Speaking of blind tests and psychology. An, quite obvious, aspect that should be taken into account. If you participate, carry out a blind test with the attitude that youy will NOT hear any difference, then you probably won't do it either. That aspect is taken by Thorsten Loesch in #352, page 18 of this thread:

Replace OP amps. Completely pointless, or not?

Even Mr.(aptly named considering we're on ASR) Dolby was blinded by science. These women, just saying.:D So far, the best post in the thread.

audiosciencereview.com

Then there is a discussion about about that aspect in that thread.

Thorsten Loesch refers, among other things, to:

View attachment 267640

Menschen hören das, was sie zu hören erwarten

Dresdner Neurowissenschaftler:innen zeigen, dass die menschliche Hörbahn Geräusche entsprechend vorheriger Erwartungen widergibt. Die Ergebnisse sind jetzt in der renommierten Fachzeitschrift eLife veröffentlicht worden.

tu-dresden.de

The purpose of blind testing is to remove all biases, being it from expecting a difference or not and a correctly designed blind test will and does account for both situations. So not sure what you are trying to say or proof?

 

[DanielT]

The purpose of blind testing is to remove all biases, being it from expecting a difference or not and a correctly designed blind test will and does account for both situations. So not sure what you are trying to say or proof?

If you participate in a blind test and your preconceived notion is that it is a meaningless blind test, that there will be no differences, there is a risk that you will have your attitude confirmed. You may imagine that there are no differences, but with a different attitude, with more concentration and an open mind, you may hear differences. It's just the other end of the spectrum, the other end works the same way. That is, if you think you hear differences, if you have preconceived notions, you will hear differences even if they are not there.
With the latter case it's easy to prove it was imaginary but imagine the first case. If you don't hear a difference it's because you really can't hear a difference (proven by several, objective fact and so on) or you're imagining there isn't a difference?

 

[Dismayed]

The amplifier may be ok. Useless ears.

As someone said: When I was young, I had the hearing but no money to buy quality hifi. Now that I'm older, I have the money but not the hearing.

Just accept the fact. The ability to hear higher frequencies decreases with age.

I can still hear the high notes on a violin. It’s true that I can no longer hear 20 kHz. But who cares?

 

[Dismayed]

I may now be missing out on a few harmonics, but there are a lot of sounds to enjoy below 13 kHz.

 

[notsodeadlizard]

Got an idea last week. Connected a Blu-ray, Sony BDP-S570, and a CD- player Marantz CD5001 to the pre amp. It has line selectors.

Went to the local flea market and managed to find duplicates, CDs. Exactly the same CDs, the same recording on the discs. Same master. Enter with the discs in the players. I think they have the same strength on the output because it sounded just as loud. Trimming, sync of the sound. When I switched between them, the music was in the same place. Result. I could not hear a shit difference. I probably dont have golden ears, or too bad amplifier and or speakers. The CDs, which I managed to find duplicates of, were one with Scheherazade, op. 35 by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. So it was also music that need a decent hifi equipment to sound good . Of course
when I turned the volume up really high, I succeeded with Scheherazade go get the amplifier in clipping mode. Useless amplifier. Apart from that, I heard no sound difference between the players.

My sister came and visited (had nothing to do with sound and hifi). She had to switch between the players and I listened blindly. No difference.

By the way, her comment: "You are an middle-aged man, what kind of nonsense are you doing."
Sets my curiosity and has fun at the same time. .... Okay, maybe she had a point.

Those were my listening impressions. Have you tried doing something similar? How good, or bad player do you think is needed before you can hear the difference? It also depends on which amplifier and speaker you use, of course.

"I heard no sound difference between the players..."
Your sister is right.
I stopped a long time ago.
There is a certain threshold, above which infinity and almost the same thing begins.
Тому я просто слухаю музику з тім рівнем гучністі на якому кліпінгу не буває

 

[JRS]

If you participate in a blind test and your preconceived notion is that it is a meaningless blind test, that there will be no differences, there is a risk that you will have your attitude confirmed. You may imagine that there are no differences, but with a different attitude, with more concentration and an open mind, you may hear differences. It's just the other end of the spectrum, the other end works the same way. That is, if you think you hear differences, if you have preconceived notions, you will hear differences even if they are not there.
With the latter case it's easy to prove it was imaginary but imagine the first case. If you don't hear a difference it's because you really can't hear a difference (proven by several, objective fact and so on) or you're imagining there isn't a difference?

In the cases I noted above, these were folk who by and large who believed audible differences were present in high-rez recordings.

Curiously, those who were most certain that they could identify the difference did the worse.

24-Bit vs. 16-Bit Audio Test - Part II: RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

The other test done by a Grammy winning sound engineer out of SoCal, Mark Waldrep can be found here:

The Truth About High-Resolution Audio: Facts, Fiction and Findings

Mark Waldrep explores what high res really means these days...

audiophilereview.com

And in the event you have never taken this test:
https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

Good luck Golden Ears!

 

[JRS]

I may now be missing out on a few harmonics, but there are a lot of sounds to enjoy below 13 kHz.
View attachment 267715

Interesting. Just wish it identified how far down in dB the various harmonics were cuz their presence doesn't guarantee they are audible. One example being a female singer--a spectral analysis would be helpful.

 

[F1308]

I may now be missing out on a few harmonics, but there are a lot of sounds to enjoy below 13 kHz.
View attachment 267715

Never understood this issue.
There is not much musicality above C8, the highest note of a standard tuned (A4@440 Hz) piano.
MIDI offers 128 notes, placing what they call #127 on G#9 at 13289.75 Hz.
As a composer, I most of the time remain below A6, ringing 1760 Hz, and anything higher is either very short a ping or you are risking someone cursing on you for your awful sonic attack. Remember that stupid tiny bell from many iPhones notifying a message ?

Yes, if you kick my leg, I am being attacked.
If you reach my chin, I can confirm I am being attacked.
And if you were to send a sustained tone at C8 (4186.01 Hz) onto my ears, I most probably started defensive measures right away.
The proof is that such a system is used onboard ships to remain clear of pirates.

 

[krabapple]

If you participate in a blind test and your preconceived notion is that it is a meaningless blind test, that there will be no differences, there is a risk that you will have your attitude confirmed. You may imagine that there are no differences, but with a different attitude, with more concentration and an open mind, you may hear differences. It's just the other end of the spectrum, the other end works the same way. That is, if you think you hear differences, if you have preconceived notions, you will hear differences even if they are not there.
With the latter case it's easy to prove it was imaginary but imagine the first case. If you don't hear a difference it's because you really can't hear a difference (proven by several, objective fact and so on) or you're imagining there isn't a difference?

You are confusing bias (an unconscious phenomenon) with 'preconceived notions'. ( I presume you are not talking about people acting in bad faith, to 'game' the DBT)

You are in effect proposing that even when the participant is 'good faith', there can be an unconscious bias *not* to perceive two things presented as 'A ' and 'B' as different.

But all psychological evidence is to the contrary -- our default unconscious bias -- meaning what we have no control over -- is to think that two things that are 'nominally' different -- presented as 'A and B' not 'A and A' -- are...different.

Second, if, during a test, the subject claims not to hear any differences between A and B, that trial is useless. And a rigorous DBT would include testing on 'true positives', i.e., training on A and B taht actually exhibit small audible difference. For example, scientific audio DBT ,e.g Harman studies exclude people who test with 'hearing deficit' in the first stages.

NOTE IMPORTANTLY: a golden ear who *already claims to hear difference* has already in effect claimed to be 'trained'. To test HIS prowess you merely need to blind and randomize his level-matched choices.

 

[DanielT]

I may now be missing out on a few harmonics, but there are a lot of sounds to enjoy below 13 kHz.
View attachment 267715

Me and tomtoo discussed FM radio in another thread, about how the sound in Sweden and Germany (probably similar in other countries) is limited up to 15 kHz. That in itself has hardly been an outcry from the music listeners, so it's not missing, even barely needed these extra Hz up to 20 kHz, that is to say. There are, in and of themselves, other more tangible problems with listening to FM radio, the reception quality of radio receivers, the transmission strength of the signal.

When I fix my compression driver, I will build something with it. Its FR drops at around 16 kHz. Nothing I care about.

Eighteen Sound - Professional loudspeakers

www.eighteensound.it

 

[DanielT]

You are confusing bias (an unconscious phenomenon) with 'preconceived notions'. ( I presume you are not talking about people acting in bad faith, to 'game' the DBT)

You are in effect proposing that even when the participant is 'good faith', there can be an unconscious bias *not* to perceive two things presented as 'A ' and 'B' as different.

But all psychological evidence is to the contrary -- our default unconscious bias -- meaning what we have no control over -- is to think that two things that are 'nominally' different -- presented as 'A and B' not 'A and A' -- are...different.

Second, if, during a test, the subject claims not to hear any differences between A and B, that trial is useless. And a rigorous DBT would include testing on 'true positives', i.e., training on A and B taht actually exhibit small audible difference. For example, scientific audio DBT ,e.g Harman studies exclude people who test with 'hearing deficit' in the first stages.

NOTE IMPORTANTLY: a golden hear who *already claims to hear difference* has already in effect claimed to be 'trained'. To test HIS prowess you merely need to blind and randomize his level-matched choices.

Well, you may have a point. It can also be about semantics, as well as touch points. If we take bias , according to Wikipedia:

Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.[1] In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias results from an unfair sampling of a population, or from an estimation process that does not give accurate results on average.[2]

Bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

___
preconceived

(of an idea or an opinion) formed too early, especially without enough thought ...

notion

a belief ...

preconceived notion collocation | meanings and examples of use

Examples of preconceived notion in a sentence, how to use it. 20 examples: To single out motivation as the major cause of unwanted pregnancies reflects a preconceived notion…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Which is consciously thought out or not? The interesting thing is the approach. Of course, it is quite pointless to involve someone to do a task if that person
more or less neglect to engage in what the end result of that "non-effort" person will be.

Now I didn't do that, "non-effort" , in my tests described in this thread but I could just listened o the discs for a few seconds, without hardly concentrating and just say: No difference (as I knew)
Note, I did not. I really tried and listened as best I could. I even turned off the freezer and refrigerator to reduce the background noise.

Interesting about Harman and the exclusion of those with hearing deficit. Totally reasonable, but was there "tone deaf" included? Those who wouldn't even be able to hear if, for example, the loudness functionality in an amp was on or not? Whether it is tone deafness, or non-training, or...well whatever it is in such a case of loudness?