• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Can You Trust Your Ears? By Tom Nousaine

Status
Not open for further replies.

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
No, it meant that YOU are the master of all knowledge, only you can have the final judgement on everything important that requires only expert opinions.
You are the grand master of the inter-audio galaxy; your six senses allow you to be on that higher level above all.

As I've never even remotely made such claims about myself, I'll chalk this up to 'delusion'. Or maybe hysteria.

On the other hand, the assumption that 'I hear a difference, therefore it is real' is rampant among audiophiles. For a fact, science rejects that assumption, with good reason. Your problem is with science and human psychology, not me.
 

NorthSky

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
4,998
Likes
937
Location
Canada West Coast/Vancouver Island/Victoria area
Hmmm. I hear two systems playing the same music but the tonal balance is strikingly different. How to choose............................

You can ask an expert.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
There is a huge straw man, a 5,000 pound gorilla in this post: The word normal. 'Nuff said.

Don't go off half-cocked, Arny. I think you'd agree that results from focusing microscopically on a 'telling' moment of music in an ABX, with volume adjuster ready at hand -- a method Amir has used to declare difference, because it's the only way to 'pass' the test -- is not normal 'audiophile' listening (much less how nonaudiophiles listen), and to get to the important point, is not sufficient to support the extravagant claims of difference spouted by both professional and lay audiophiles.

I've said it before, I'll say it again; a research protocol where you want to answer the question 'can X be heard by anyone?' requires making the test as sensitive as possible -- e.g. , trained listeners, maximally revealing samples, etc, including perhaps, focusing microscopically. Totally legit science. Extrapolating positive results from such a highly optimized protocol, treating them as dispositive evidence for the typical claims of audiophiles of the Stereophile/TAS stripe-- "I switched in my new cable/CD player/hi-rez recording/tweak and OMG the bass bloomed, the image snapped into place, the veil was lifted, even my waifu-doll heard it (my real wife left long ago)" is not. If anything even the most positive scientific results tend to indicate the inherent *difficulty* of ever hearing certain classes of differences.
 
Last edited:

NorthSky

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
4,998
Likes
937
Location
Canada West Coast/Vancouver Island/Victoria area
As I've never even remotely made such claims about myself, I'll chalk this up to 'delusion'. Or maybe hysteria.

On the other hand, the assumption that 'I hear a difference, therefore it is real' is rampant among audiophiles. For a fact, science rejects that assumption, with good reason. Your problem is with science and human psychology, not me.

I'm here by accident; I was curious of the latest post of this thread by Arnold K. (last post from the previous page).

I then took some time to revisit some, including the very first post, and few more. Your last one just appeared now while I was busy reading, plus replying to an old post from Kal, with a touch of humor.

When hesitating between which and which should I pick, the one as the best sounding component, follow your instinct, your comfort zone.
_____

Now in reply to your post above; I'm sure you never made such a claim, ...I was replying as to it sounds like, not to true reality.
Forget about delusion or hysteria; it has nothing to do with you or I or them, us all here in this thread. Trust me on that.

Your second paragraph, now that is interesting.
It is to me a valid infinity. It works perfectly with one within the universe.
If I am a witness of the same listening event, meaning I'm there too in the room and sharing my own thoughts on what I hear, I too bring another brick in the wall, meaning a variable, differing or agreeing opinion.
Without being there I cannot bring the entity here. Meaning there is no assumption, nothing, no perception, no anticipation, no presumption, no confirmation, no nothing. I cannot even agree or disagree with the unknown.

What is science? I'm serious. How do we compare science if not by equations through time. How changes affect science. How do we interpret our analysis of theorical measurements with other's own set of measurements in a comparative normal equilibrium. Are measurements incomplete hyperbole without comparing them with other values.
I just don't know in audio, I'm here in the search to find out what I can look for.
 
Last edited:

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
I've said it before, I'll say it again; a research protocol where you want to answer the question 'can X be heard by anyone?' requires making the test as sensitive as possible -- e.g. , trained listeners, maximally revealing samples, etc, including perhaps, focusing microscopically.
"Maximally revealing samples" is key - beautifully mastered efforts by people at the top of the craft would highly likely make the job far more difficult than it needs to be.

In this vein I just had another listening session with an audio friend down the road - he has a main system in the house, with flash looking, bigger speakers - started off well enough, but the longer we listened the less enoyable it got - we were in tiresome, "have we got a better recording?" territory ... the final nail was David Bowie's "Ziggy Stardust and the ..." album. I know it well, and it was downright irritating, both in LP and media player .... hmmm, it was time for the backshed system!! This is the mucking around beast, very small bookshelfs, but using the same, Naim, amp which has been heavily hacked, unlike the main system unit. Typical back shed, full of junk, and zero room enhancements ... :p

Ahhhh ... the music's back!! Same media player as just before, just moved and plugged in - yes, night and day, cheese and chalk, all the jargon you want. Music recordings that highlight problem areas make it so simple, so easy to pick up AB stuff - but it appears to be rarely done ...
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Don't go off half-cocked, Arny. I think you'd agree that results from focusing microscopically on a 'telling' moment of music in an ABX, with volume adjuster ready at hand -- a method Amir has used to declare difference, because it's the only way to 'pass' the test -- is not normal 'audiophile' listening (much less how nonaudiophiles listen), and to get to the important point, is not sufficient to support the extravagant claims of difference spouted by both professional and lay audiophiles.

I've said it before, I'll say it again; a research protocol where you want to answer the question 'can X be heard by anyone?' requires making the test as sensitive as possible -- e.g. , trained listeners, maximally revealing samples, etc, including perhaps, focusing microscopically. Totally legit science. Extrapolating positive results from such a highly optimized protocol, treating them as dispositive evidence for the typical claims of audiophiles of the Stereophile/TAS stripe-- "I switched in my new cable/CD player/hi-rez recording/tweak and OMG the bass bloomed, the image snapped into place, the veil was lifted, even my waifu-doll heard it (my real wife left long ago)" is not. If anything even the most positive scientific results tend to indicate the inherent *difficulty* of ever hearing certain classes of differences.

Good post. Using the most extreme sensitive testing makes good sense. Then looking at what it implies takes a little bit of wisdom, experience and sense. When the most sensitive possible method of listening barely allows a perception to be verified it doesn't mean it verifies the most insensitive, error prone method e.g. sighted uncontrolled non-volume matched long term listening, to claim it has been verified as well.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
Good post. Using the most extreme sensitive testing makes good sense. Then looking at what it implies takes a little bit of wisdom, experience and sense. When the most sensitive possible method of listening barely allows a perception to be verified it doesn't mean it verifies the most insensitive, error prone method e.g. sighted uncontrolled non-volume matched long term listening, to claim it has been verified as well.


yup! even shorter: Science saying it *can* be heard, doesn't prove that *you* heard it!
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,759
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
My opinion, lots of smoke, but some pretty good exhaust fans, too.

There are a few issues that are sensitively related to particular products, where I don't generally comment.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Good post. Using the most extreme sensitive testing makes good sense. Then looking at what it implies takes a little bit of wisdom, experience and sense. When the most sensitive possible method of listening barely allows a perception to be verified it doesn't mean it verifies the most insensitive, error prone method e.g. sighted uncontrolled non-volume matched long term listening, to claim it has been verified as well.
Focusing on an artifact is the approach to be used when using a single bit of music, say - otherwise the 'inner learning' of how the piece hangs together will override one's ability to discern the flaws. IOW, stop listening to the track as music, and create a listening situation where it just becomes a meaningless sequence of sounds ... there's an equivalent methodology in painting - you don't paint a "face", it's just a series of abstract shapes joined together, which when finished becomes ... a face!!

Which doesn't mean that listening to the system to hear music as an ongoing exercise won't tell you something - every normal system has a "smell", a signature; and the more you will listen to it the more that smell intensifies - if the smell stays the same with every recording, and is irritating, then there's something deeply wrong with the setup. It may require switching to a different mode of listening to pick what it is, etc, etc, but that's part of the process of sorting.

If it becomes impossible to categorise the sound, going from recording to recording, then it's in a pretty good space ...
 

Arnold Krueger

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
160
Likes
83
Focusing on an artifact is the approach to be used when using a single bit of music, say - otherwise the 'inner learning' of how the piece hangs together will override one's ability to discern the flaws.

Doesn't seem to work in the real world.

Learning how the whole piece sounds can be, for many people and many situations a prerequisite for learning to hear the technical flaws in how the piece was reproduced.

For example, music with normal dynamic range when played on a typical system with less dynamic range capability than required will cause the sound of certain instruments to undergo changes in sound quality during system overloads. The system overloads generate sounds (clipping, muddiness, intermodulation) that don't fit with the rest of the piece of music.

So, instead of learning overriding perception, learning assists perception. The claim is actually a complete reversal of how the world works.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Doesn't seem to work in the real world.

Learning how the whole piece sounds can be, for many people and many situations a prerequisite for learning to hear the technical flaws in how the piece was reproduced.

For example, music with normal dynamic range when played on a typical system with less dynamic range capability than required will cause the sound of certain instruments to undergo changes in sound quality during system overloads. The system overloads generate sounds (clipping, muddiness, intermodulation) that don't fit with the rest of the piece of music.

So, instead of learning overriding perception, learning assists perception. The claim is actually a complete reversal of how the world works.
Possibly true or possibly not. Maybe it applies to some people and not others. Maybe it's common sense to you, or maybe you have a gut feeling.

But a common observation in the audiophile world also seems to be that musicians - who know the pieces inside out - don't worry about the quality of their hi fi systems, the claim being that they are only taking notice of the music and/or the quality of the performance. Again, it sounds believable in a common sense sort of way.
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,498
Location
Monument, CO
Possibly true or possibly not. Maybe it applies to some people and not others. Maybe it's common sense to you, or maybe you have a gut feeling.

But a common observation in the audiophile world also seems to be that musicians - who know the pieces inside out - don't worry about the quality of their hi fi systems, the claim being that they are only taking notice of the music and/or the quality of the performance. Again, it sounds believable in a common sense sort of way.


IME there are plenty of musicians with very nice audio systems, but probably many more without -- hard to make a living in the music biz these days. However, for ages one of my "Don'isms" has been the observation that musicians tend to listen to the music whilst audiophiles tend to listen to the gear. A musician is more likely to comment upon the out-of-tune chord than the flat sound stage or "microdynamics".

FWIWFM - Don (musician/engineer/general PITA)
 

Arnold Krueger

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
160
Likes
83
Possibly true or possibly not.

I suspect that your skepticism is based on personally not ever having to reliably hear a subtle difference. You are probably a true believer in sighted evaluations, and with that crutch in place, you are likely to not ever had to actually hear a difference, as opposed to detecting a placebo (imaginary) effect.

The process of discovering critical passages that elicit equipment and software fidelity failures as I described is general knowledge among people who depend on listening to tell if some of the audio gear they are listening to is working properly or not. Audiophiles fail to be this way because they are so overwhelmed with spending all that money burning holes in their pockets. For them, hearing a difference is an excuse to spend more money and get some new trinket and the bragging rights that go with it.

The development of perceptual coders has been a fertile field for developing reliable ways to detect failing audio products such as perceptual coders. ABX is widely used in that context to this day because of its diagnostic abilities. Of course, for typical know-nothing MP3-hating audiophiles, this makes no sense.

But a common observation in the audiophile world also seems to be that musicians - who know the pieces inside out - don't worry about the quality of their hi fi systems, the claim being that they are only taking notice of the music and/or the quality of the performance. Again, it sounds believable in a common sense sort of way.

Great example of reaching a false conclusion from a true circumstance.

As a recording engineer. I've spent a lot of time working with musicians and music directors. Some musicians care very much about the sound quality of their audio systems, but it is true that others do not.

The difference between a musician and a non-musician listening to music is that the musician has a strong tendency to get absorbed in the technical musical aspects of the performance, such as whether the right notes are being hit at the right time with the right inflection. When they listen they are prone to "play along" with the music in their mind with their own imaginary instrument. They might even move their fingers a bit or not.

Most non-musicians lack the musical technical knowledge that it takes to listen to music like a musician. They listen more holistically and are generally far more concerned with how the music is acted on by the sound system or the room. The details are more interesting to the musician.

That leads to an observation that I and others have made which is that most musicians are less concerned with the acoustics of the rooms they play in, than your typical concert goer. For one thing, the musicians are right up close and personal with the instruments and voices, and hear primarily the direct sound from the instrument, not sound that has gone out into the room and bounced around. But they have no control over the acoustics so their attention is on what they can control which is that they play the right notes with the right inflection at the right time. If a listener gets that wrong, who even knows?
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,548
Location
Seattle Area
The development of perceptual coders has been a fertile field for developing reliable ways to detect failing audio products such as perceptual coders. ABX is widely used in that context to this day because of its diagnostic abilities. Of course, for typical know-nothing MP3-hating audiophiles, this makes no sense.
ABX is hardly ever used in context of lossy codecs. Most common are similar to ITU BS1116 where users rate fidelity of each stimulus. Since degradation is known objectively to be there, this method of testing is far more common.

On audio forums ABX is used with high bitrate lossy codecs to challenge the other party's hearing ability. That has nothing to do with "development" of perceptual codecs.
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,759
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
ABX is hardly ever used in context of lossy codecs. Most common are similar to ITU BS1116 where users rate fidelity of each stimulus. Since degradation is known objectively to be there, this method of testing is far more common.

On audio forums ABX is used with high bitrate lossy codecs to challenge the other party's hearing ability. That has nothing to do with "development" of perceptual codecs.

Near-transparent codecs use ABC/hr, where A is known to be "reference" and both B and C must be graded for "difference" (as opposed to quality or impairment, as "difference" proves to be psychologically much more consistent than "quality" or "preference" metrics. Since it is stated beforehand that one of B or C is the hidden reference (that's the "hr"), one of B or C must be rated 5.

This devolves to ABX in practice when you can't hear a difference. So for absolute "is it transparent" ABX is the tool, but it's rarely used in most codecs.

For "low rate" coders that accept "reasonable distortion" (please don't ask me about that idea) something called "MUSHRA" is common. In it, you rate a variety of stimulii and rate the lot on a single variable. While it's not a useless strategy, it attempts to force many considerations into one and only one variable. I'm not a fan of the method any more than I am of "low rate coders that only sound sort of bad" (if you want my opinion, there it is).

But for "is there any difference at all" ABX is the standard. ABC/hr is slower, longer, and harder, but it provides a "how much different" that is necessary with most codecs.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
I suspect that your skepticism is based on personally not ever having to reliably hear a subtle difference. You are probably a true believer in sighted evaluations, and with that crutch in place, you are likely to not ever had to actually hear a difference, as opposed to detecting a placebo (imaginary) effect.
There you go again: "probably", like your earlier "Doesn't seem to..." "can be", etc. I am only postulating in the same, imprecise, non-scientific ways that you were. I am happy to discuss ideas in those terms if you don't then pretend that your suppositions and anecdotes are scientific.

Edit: Your modus operandi is pretty obvious!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom