Our perception of audio

[amirm]

Frantz post this on WBF forum and I thought it also belongs here. It is the most fundamental concept in audio evaluation and we need to get on the same page on it. The text is my response to his post.

---

Thus the present question. How reliable are our perceptions? Do we hear things that are not there sometimes and yet construct them because we want these to exist?

While this is responsible for some of the faulty observations, just as big of a factor is the elasticity of our perception of audio. When evaluating new additions to our systems, we become far more attentive. We are dying to know if the new addition made a difference. We pay far more attention to what is played and as a result, hear detail, nuances, etc. that we did not when we were just enjoying music. What happens then is what you say: we attach those improvements to the new device and bias makes sure that when we go back to "before" configuration, we don't hear those improvements.

This is a very difficult thought exercise but when faced with this situation, try to see if you can hear the same differences in the old configuration. Having done that, all of those improvements appear in the older configuration too! And by the same token, you can take them out of the new config/tweak.

This is why blind tests work better. There, you apply the analytic technique to both samples, not just one. And without identity, whatever you think is different, cannot be associated with the new config/tweak.

The above explains why our evaluation of audio products can be faulty even when "we didn't expect to hear a difference." Or, "I expected it to sound worse." In both cases, we still listen more attentively and as a result hear more detail whether we expected it or not. This happens to me all the time even though I am hyper aware of listener bias. The above thought exercises and blind testing are the only way I can pull myself out of false conclusions.

I can't tell you how many times I have run a blind test and read more detail, resolution, lower noise floor into one sample, only to have all of those observations be false. And then be able to hear all of that into the other sample and not the first!

Without checks and balances that blind testing provides, i.e. holding the truth card, we can lead ourselves to completely wrong conclusions about the products we are evaluating and our ability to do so. And once lost in the forest, anything goes from there on.

BTW, I hope you don't mind me stealing your post for ASR Forum . I won't be posting more in this thread but do like to continue the discussion there.

 

[Purité Audio]

Ultimately everyone should and must choose the 'sound' they prefer.
I would just like listeners to understand technically why a particular 'sound' may be different to another ,rather than believe that there is some sort of magic responsible.
I completely agree regarding unsighted comparisons , I believe that a little more technical knowledge would save time and money and allow listeners to arrive at their preferred sound more quickly.
I would hope that manufacturers ,retailers and magazines would offer honest advice that will genuinely improve sound quality rather than just sell boxes.
Keith.

 

[RayDunzl]

This is a very difficult thought exercise but when faced with this situation, try to see if you can hear the same differences in the old configuration. Having done that, all of those improvements appear in the older configuration too! And by the same token, you can take them out of the new config/tweak.

I could think it could be related to the "audio illusion" where you hear a garbled and unintelligible message, then hear it ungarbled, and then can "clearly" understand the original garbled version. The effect wears off, come back a week later, listen only to the garbled, and it is unintelligible again.

https://soundcloud.com/whyy-the-pulse/an-audio-illusion

I can be wrong, as this is an extreme case (and speech processing related) compared to usual audio differences, but still...

 

[Sal1950]

A great post, thanks for repeating it here Amir.
If only we could find a way to get the religious zealots to open their mind to the realities of the sighted critical listening session.

 

[Thomas savage]

Frantz post this on WBF forum and I thought it also belongs here. It is the most fundamental concept in audio evaluation and we need to get on the same page on it. The text is my response to his post.

---


While this is responsible for some of the faulty observations, just as big of a factor is the elasticity of our perception of audio. When evaluating new additions to our systems, we become far more attentive. We are dying to know if the new addition made a difference. We pay far more attention to what is played and as a result, hear detail, nuances, etc. that we did not when we were just enjoying music. What happens then is what you say: we attach those improvements to the new device and bias makes sure that when we go back to "before" configuration, we don't hear those improvements.

This is a very difficult thought exercise but when faced with this situation, try to see if you can hear the same differences in the old configuration. Having done that, all of those improvements appear in the older configuration too! And by the same token, you can take them out of the new config/tweak.

This is why blind tests work better. There, you apply the analytic technique to both samples, not just one. And without identity, whatever you think is different, cannot be associated with the new config/tweak.

The above explains why our evaluation of audio products can be faulty even when "we didn't expect to hear a difference." Or, "I expected it to sound worse." In both cases, we still listen more attentively and as a result hear more detail whether we expected it or not. This happens to me all the time even though I am hyper aware of listener bias. The above thought exercises and blind testing are the only way I can pull myself out of false conclusions.

I can't tell you how many times I have run a blind test and read more detail, resolution, lower noise floor into one sample, only to have all of those observations be false. And then be able to hear all of that into the other sample and not the first!

Without checks and balances that blind testing provides, i.e. holding the truth card, we can lead ourselves to completely wrong conclusions about the products we are evaluating and our ability to do so. And once lost in the forest, anything goes from there on.

BTW, I hope you don't mind me stealing your post for ASR Forum . I won't be posting more in this thread but do like to continue the discussion there.

Having assessed my own behaviour some time ago, I drew the same conclusions. The common practice of ' critical listening' is a mine field of self deception bombs as far as the eye can see. I avoid this behaviour.

This is a fact, not a opinion certainly as far as untrained listeners go. For me the more training may well just lead to more intrenched deception. Though that is a opinion, my opinion.

I am on the same page, the evidence is overwhelming period.

 

[amirm]

A great post, thanks for repeating it here Amir.
If only we could find a way to get the religious zealots to open their mind to the realities of the sighted critical listening session.

Thanks. It is a problem because people keep grading their own exams. They draw conclusions that are not correct but they keep doing it. And congratulate themselves on being right every time!

One has to be tested by someone else, proven right or wrong, to be set on the right course.

 

[NorthSky]

Great subject, and I agree.

* The study of higher learning is the combination of all equations; sound perception included. ...All our senses.
We don't analyse anything, we observe with our ears what leads us to relax more. ...All is good to get there.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Frantz post this on WBF forum and I thought it also belongs here. It is the most fundamental concept in audio evaluation and we need to get on the same page on it. The text is my response to his post.

Where is Frantz? Frantz belongs here.

Tim

 

[NorthSky]

Frantz, he belongs to where his wind's blowin'.

 

[amirm]

Where is Frantz? Frantz belongs here.

Tim

He does. He joined but have not seen him post as of late. I think posting any topics on WBF at this point is wasting time. And recipe for Steve to walk behind you to delete your posts.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I wonder if even the trained listeners can hear some of these things when they are relaxed and enjoying the music. For their sakes, I hope not. As an example, I can't enjoy the music and simultaneously tell the difference between 320kbps AAC file and lossless, much less hi-res. I'm thoroughly capable of fully enjoying music at 256 kbps. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

128 I can hear, but now that iTunes allows me to convert lossless to 256 when saving to my phone, I don't even have to worry about that.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Frantz, he belongs to where his wind's blowin'.

He does. But I wish he was here.

Tim

 

[RayDunzl]

I think posting any topics on WBF at this point is wasting time.

Here was the last post I made on WBF.

(In case it disappears: "How do Power Cords perform all this good stuff when they (at least, the hot and neutral leads) spend most of their time isolated from the equipment circuitry via rectifier diodes in the non-conducting state?")

Note, it was a busy thread, then my question, then <crickets> for six days (!!!), then a resumption of the drivel.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

He does. He joined but have not seen him post as of late. I think posting any topics on WBF at this point is wasting time. And recipe for Steve to walk behind you to delete your posts.

I rarely go over there and even read any more. There just isn't anything there for me.

Tim

 

[amirm]

I rarely go over there and even read any more. There just isn't anything there for me.

Tim

Good thing since Steve is deleting your posts anyway .

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Good thing since Steve is deleting your posts anyway .

. Now I can't seem to even get past the home page. No forums appear to be available. Oh well...

 

[Sal1950]

He does. He joined but have not seen him post as of late. I think posting any topics on WBF at this point is wasting time. And recipe for Steve to walk behind you to delete your posts.

I hadn't been there in quite some time, my last posts were on your Entreq Measurement thread. I got a bit (lot) pissed the day Steve told you to basically take your measurements back here and that people at WBF weren't interested in them. I fully expected to be banned for my comments to him on the issue. LOL Seems a lot of what I have posted have now disappeared.
I never did have much use for the insanity there, none now that you created ASR

 

[fas42]

Getting back on track, what I learned ages ago was to completely discard the term "improve" - what I do is "fix" the system, the attitude and approach is completely different, and IME yields the only worthwhile, long term results. Similar to a brand new car, the object is complete as a package, it's been engineered to do its job as well as the quality of the parts allow it, and the only concern is whether it develops faults as it runs in, or shows that quality control didn't do a good enough job in the manufacturing plant.

From my POV, the quality control in audio is abysmal, appalling - the "new" product is riddled with faults; and the only sensible thing is to steadily work through the parts of the whole and sort out all the items, defects that you would send the car back to the workshop of the dealer to deal with. The end result of doing this in the audio game is to get a competent playback system, one without audible issues - it's now equivalent to a new, fault free vehicle.

 

[NorthSky]

Here was the last post I made on WBF.

(In case it disappears: "How do Power Cords perform all this good stuff when they (at least, the hot and neutral leads) spend most of their time isolated from the equipment circuitry via rectifier diodes in the non-conducting state?")

Note, it was a busy thread, then my question, then <crickets> for six days (!!!), then a resumption of the drivel.

That's a month ago. Here my last five (5, 4, 3, 2, 1): http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...nd-joke-thread&p=395350&viewfull=1#post395350

But, I'm going to reply soon to this one (I think): http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...at-Munich-2016&p=395290&viewfull=1#post395290
I like the second line; testes.

 

[NorthSky]

My perception of audio is related to the quality of the music recordings of the music genres I love. I forgo the artist/musician/singer own personal life.
Their art work takes priority, the message and the delivery. ... Van Morrison I can even forgo some of the quality recording.

@Tim, it was spooky that Van's rendition of I put a spell on you, when he was just a young boy.

The album ↓ version (amazing tempo, the best, and the rendition, oh my!):

The DVD ↓ version (I got that):

Who's ↓ that!