Master Thread: “Objectivism versus Subjectivism” debate and is there a middle ground?

[Hasan Aydin]

What does that have to do with bass frequencies and perception of a change in bass drum and reconstruction filters ?

maybe it's easier to hear these IR changes at lower frequencies.

 

[antcollinet]

You declare something impossible just because it doesn't occur in the norm

No, nothing about the norm, but because the science says it is vanishingly unlikely. We can measure what a device does to the sound. We know what is audible in terms of those measurements.

Instead, how about thinking the other way around and declaring something possible until you have proof against it.

We do - see point 1.

We also know that the human auditory system is incredibly poor at measurement. In particular we know that it is subject to subconscious biases by which our subconscious brain can alter our perception of what we hear based on many other factors - including what we know we are listening to.

So when you come to us and claim to be able to hear something that the science says is vanishingly unlikely - are we going to say "Oh, look, something new to science" or are we going to use Occam's razor to put it down to the most likely cause and conclude subconscious bias is at play - until demonstrated otherwise by a properly controlled blind test.

Open Minded was the key word

But not so open our brains fall out.

This kind of thinking does not advance science.

Science is also not advanced by wasting time investigating observations that have not been demonstrated to be valid. We have a way of demonstrating validity of listening observations - and that is the blind test. Blind testing is used in every field of scientific endeavour where human perceptions and reactions are involved. There is no reason for the science of audio to be different.

 

[IAtaman]

The differences I heard were mostly at low frequencies (bass, kick drum). Of course, there are also DAC filters that affect the frequency response, such as NOS and slow filters at lower sampling rates, and ripples are not uncommon. I made sure that I used filters that did not affect the frequency response (with measurements) and used sources from 96khz to make sure that the slow filters did not affect the audible frequency range.

That is what I am talking about and clarifies my core statement. You declare something impossible just because it doesn't occur in the norm and want proof of it. Instead, how about thinking the other way around and declaring something possible until you have proof against it. Open Minded was the key word. This kind of thinking does not advance science.

Please. This argumentation is as old as the invention of scientific method itself. People see ghosts and when others don't believe them, they claim you are not open minded and this is counter indicative to the advancement of science, and therefore it is scientific to believe in ghosts until they are disproved. It is a fallacy. There are no ghosts.

Filters might sound different. Some filters, especially the slow ones that effect the frequency response might create audible differences. This is not new, or unknown phenomena. The correct filter is the sharp filter. The pre and post ringing effects you get with an impulse response do not have any impact at the levels they are present.

 

[IAtaman]

What does that have to do with bass frequencies and perception of a change in bass drum and reconstruction filters ?

Some DAC marketing material describe sharp filters as bass enhancing, hence the correlation I think.

 

[Hasan Aydin]

The pre and post ringing effects you get with an impulse response do not have any impact at the levels they are present.

I would like to read a study that shows how much Pre and Post Ringing is audible or not.

 

[IAtaman]

I would like to read a study that shows how much Pre and Post Ringing is audible or not.

I think that is a good idea. There are various measurements available here and at diyaudio.com.

Here is a good starting point:

Digital filter "game"

Some of you probably have seen a lot of filter plots like these on DAC datasheets: How about making these things without using specialized software like Matlab, Octave and such? They are not particularly easy to use. So many people just "see" them rather than try to figure out the meaning...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Hasan Aydin]

I think that is a good idea. There are various measurements available here and at diyaudio.com.

Here is a good starting point:

Digital filter "game"

Some of you probably have seen a lot of filter plots like these on DAC datasheets: How about making these things without using specialized software like Matlab, Octave and such? They are not particularly easy to use. So many people just "see" them rather than try to figure out the meaning...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I only see FR measurements here nothing about audibilty of IR differences.

I think there is a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that a filter boosts the bass, the difference lies in the attack of bass or kick drums. With a linear phase filter it is less defined and sounds muddy, with minimum phase filters the bass sounds harder, of course you don't see such changes in the frequency response because it is in the time domain.

Most of the evidence and research we have relates to FR and amplitude, but differences in time, such as pre and post ringing, are less researched. Measurements are not enough, human testing is also needed

 

[IAtaman]

I only see FR measurements here nothing about audibilty of IR differences.

I think there is a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that a filter boosts the bass, the difference lies in the attack of bass or kick drums. With a linear phase filter it is less defined and sounds muddy, with minimum phase filters the bass sounds harder, of course you don't see such changes in the frequency response because it is in the time domain.

That should be easy to test it for yourself. Take a kick drum sample, pass it through the DAC with slow filter and record the output of your amp. Do it one more time but with the sharp filter on this time, and record that response too. Compare the two signals with DeltaWave and check if you see any differences.

 

[solderdude]

maybe it's easier to hear these IR changes at lower frequencies.

Why ? None of these frequencies are present in bass notes ?

Some DAC marketing material describe sharp filters as bass enhancing, hence the correlation I think.

Possible that people 'hear' what some chart says they should hear.

 

[solderdude]

I would like to read a study that shows how much Pre and Post Ringing is audible or not.

It should be obvious the 'ringing' ONLY occurs at frequencies near Nyquist and thus there is NO pre-ringing at any frequencies bass note harmonics can reach.

I'm not saying that a filter boosts the bass, the difference lies in the attack of bass or kick drums.

What would be the highest harmonics of an 'attack' in bass or kick drums ?
When they approach Nyquist AND are not masked AND reach audible levels then I would find it plausible.

That should be easy to test it for yourself. Take a kick drum sample, pass it through the DAC with slow filter and record the output of your amp. Do it one more time but with the sharp filter on this time, and record that response too.

Not so fast... after all you would not be comparing 2 different DACs as they respond differently above 1/4 Nyquist already and the differences above Nyquist would not be present in that test.

Measurements are not enough, human testing is also needed

The problem here is that one can expect audible differences (not so much in bass) simply because the slow filters do not adhere to the sampling theorem.
Young people using well extended transducers and trained what to listen for are likely to ace well performed statistical relevant blind tests with the right music.
Then comes the question of preference which is another ball game.

Of course this can be tested with DAC's that have slow and fast filters but would have to be done blind and with statistical relevance.
All the 'tests' I have seen is by people knowing what filter is used.

 

[IAtaman]

Not so fast... after all you would not be comparing 2 different DACs as they respond differently above 1/4 Nyquist already and the differences above Nyquist would not be present in that test.

Sorry, I did not get your point. Claim was the pre and post ringing created by sharp filters would be audible in the form of extra bass. I suggested to record the signal with sharp filter and slow filter and see if there is any difference in bass. I am not sure I follow how differences above Nyquist would be relevant for this claim.

 

[antcollinet]

I only see FR measurements here nothing about audibilty of IR differences.

Impulse response and frequency/phase response are the same thing. One can be derived fully from the other.

http://www.dip.ee.uct.ac.za/~nicolls/lectures/eee2047s/notes/XX_systf_2up.pdf

 

[antcollinet]

Most of the evidence and research we have relates to FR and amplitude, but differences in time, such as pre and post ringing, are less researched. Measurements are not enough, human testing is also needed

Ringing is not introduced by a filter - it is an inherrent characteristic of a band limited signal. (It is what you are left with when higher frequencies are removed, or not added in the first place - See gibbs effect)

Whether the "rining" (gibbs waveform) appears to be pre or post is simply due to the phase characteristic of the filter. So we are talking about the audibility of phase shift - and so far I've seen no evidence that phase shift is audible.

Interesting that you say linear phase sounds muddy to you - since linear phase has no phase shift between the different frequencies (it is essentially a fixed time delay applied equally across the frequency band). It creates the most accurate time domain representation of the band limited signal.

 

[BDWoody]

You declare something impossible just because it doesn't occur in the norm and want proof of it. Instead, how about thinking the other way around and declaring something possible until you have proof against it.

Are you familiar with Russell's Teapot?

 

[fpitas]

Why do we always get stuck disproving nonsense.

 

[BDWoody]

Why do we always get stuck disproving nonsense.

Because that's what the propaganda machine uses. It's all they've got.

 

[fpitas]

Conversely,, all these people who have discovered gaping holes in existing science never seem to prove anything. Just talk. They could go down in history if anything they said was true.

 

[danadam]

Claim was the pre and post ringing created by sharp filters would be audible in the form of extra bass. I suggested to record the signal with sharp filter and slow filter and see if there is any difference in bass.

Is pre/post related to slow/fast? I thought they were orthogonal properties.

 

[voodooless]

Is pre/post related to slow/fast? I thought they were orthogonal properties.

No, there is a clear relationship. Pre-rining is created by phase linear filters only. And generally, the amount of rining is determined by the steepness of the filter.

The notion of extra bass seems ludicrous. Bass is exactly not where rining would occur.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Instead, how about thinking the other way around and declaring something possible until you have proof against it.

There is a word for that: superstition.

Jim