Recommended reading for new comers and inquisitive minds.

[Ajax]

Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science ..... Bob Katz

Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science - Katz, Bob | 8601404985119 | Amazon.com.au | Books

Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science [Katz, Bob] on Amazon.com.au. *FREE* shipping on eligible orders. Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science

www.amazon.com.au

 

[Entropy]

Niche, but I like this: https://adireaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Adire-Audio-Woofer-Speed-by-Dan-Wiggins.pdf

 

[test1223]

Hello,

there are some very interesting recommendations to read.

I think it would be very beneficial to add an article about the human ability to compare sound signals. I think the intuitively wrong assumption about the human ability of rating sound differences correctly is one of the most struggling points for newbies and even a lot of pros.

So what do you think about an article like this: https://www.hifiohr.de/

 

[Head_Unit]

I think it would be very beneficial to add an article about the human ability to compare sound signals. I think the intuitively wrong assumption about the human ability of rating sound differences correctly is one of the most struggling points for newbies and even a lot of pros. So what do you think about an article like this: https://www.hifiohr.de/

It's a nice article but without any evidence or proof. I think the basic thesis that "human sound perception is very fallible" is a good one to pursue here...the extension of which is "you CANNOT draw conclusions from audio tests which aren't really well controlled* AND blind"
*like matching levels from pink noise instead of a voltmeter, for instance.

 

[test1223]

It's a nice article but without any evidence or proof. I think the basic thesis that "human sound perception is very fallible" is a good one to pursue here...the extension of which is "you CANNOT draw conclusions from audio tests which aren't really well controlled* AND blind"
*like matching levels from pink noise instead of a voltmeter, for instance.

I think the distinction between small and big differences is very important and well explained by the article.
If you tell a newbie that you can only reliably hear differences with controlled tests it is not the full truth, since you can distinguish bigger difference like a deeper bass or a stronger resonance easily and reliably without a controlled listening test.

Why do you think there isn't any evidence? All findings are well known and the basics of the research in the different fields and there are even links at the end of the article which lead to scientific research findings.

 

[Somafunk]

This recommendation will take it right back to the beginning but is still an excellent read, we would not be in the place we are now without this man’s work.

James Clerk Maxwell - The Man Who Changed Everything

Personal and close to home, literally and figuratively as my gran was related to Jean Ferguson (her husband bought Glenlair house - home of James Clerk Maxwell) so I often spent time there running around as a kid and absorbed talk about Maxwell from my grandad who was a marine engineer in the 2nd world war then went onto be head engineer for the Galloway hydro scheme in SW Scotland based at Tongland in one of the hydro scheme cottages, I lived less than half a mile away from them so I was always hanging around and getting in the way as kids are prone to do , needless to say I was in awe of the massive turbines he kept serviced and the intricacies of the hydro scheme was such an eye opener to a kid there’s no wonder I did electronic/mechanical engineering at uni

Galloway Hydro Scheme, it shows the giant turbine hall I ran around in as a kid

 

[Head_Unit]

links at the end of the article which lead to scientific research findings.

Oh the "Resorces"-I thought those were kind of general reading links though on closer observation I see some are research papers. My comment is more that to a general reader the article is interesting but doesn't direct offer evidence of those assertions...which maybe doesn't matter a lot. I am curious now what studies show is the readily perceptible volume change, and now much it varies between individuals. Oh god I remember doing a test of a regular car head unit amp versus one with a Tripath chip. A bunch of managers and executives had come from Japan for some meeting and we're all listening to this A/B comparison with AT LEAST a 6 dB level difference between the two

If you tell a newbie that you can only reliably hear differences with controlled tests it is not the full truth, since you can distinguish bigger difference like a deeper bass or a stronger resonance easily and reliably without a controlled listening test.

I believe humans can easily imagine such differences, or perceive them due to listening more intently, etc ad nauseam. Which is why on the one hand I agree what you are saying is totally correct,* but I use the phrase "cannot prove."

*Loudness on/off or changing speakers or turning on Church/Hall/Jazz DSP and so on-really gross differences will definitely be perceptible without needing controlled conditions. But nobody argues about those, they argue about whether cables or DACs or power conditioning or pucks and so on make a difference. Items which from an engineering and physics point of view simply are incapable of making much change to the sound. So any change heard really has to be heard under controlled blind conditions or you cannot assert that a physical change happened. (I also believe that perceptual changes could absolutely happen validly in the brain even if no physical change occurred).

 

[test1223]

My comment is more that to a general reader the article is interesting but doesn't direct offer evidence of those assertions...which maybe doesn't matter a lot.

Ah now I get your point. I guess the explanation to almost all psychoacoustics which happen in the brain is that studies had found this and there are some guesses but no real prove for the mechanisms behind the behavior since it is very hard to prove anything which is connected with the brain. So this isn't maybe that interesting since everything is focused to give a brief overview in the article?

But nobody argues about those, they argue about whether cables or DACs or power conditioning or pucks and so on make a difference.

Yes, the ones who are certain to hear the small difference reliably without a blind test extrapolate the reasoning from tests of bigger difference, I guess. So it is important to be clear what you can and can't hear reliably.

(I also believe that perceptual changes could absolutely happen validly in the brain even if no physical change occurred).

Yes, you can even argue about the necessity of nice or expansive looking gear since it changed the sound by its looks and assumptions even so the sound waves doesn't change.