What does this actually do?

[sarscott]

Many high-end audiophiles listen to analog systems with tons of distortion and noise compared to digital. So yes, our brain has many blind spots when it comes to distortion. Perceptual and temporal masking are quite powerful. As is the highly non-linear sensitivity of the ear to low level signals. A distortion that is audible at 3 kHz, would have to be 50 dB higher to be audible at 30 Hz!

Let's remember that our hearing from evolutionary point of view was designed to hear other humans and pray. It was not meant to be a high-resolution electronic recorder. It can do remarkably well at times (e.g. in mid-frequencies) but then be as deaf as a stomp other times. With music being a busy spectrum, many things need to line up for distortion to be audible.

So these test are inconclusive as you cannot differentiate if the subjects simply cannot hear the distortion according to the limits of our hearing mechanisms, or if the subjects cannot hear the distortion because the brain is effectively filtering out the distortion.

Isn't it possible that because people listen to mostly listen to audio equipment that has relatively high levels of noise that they have trained their brain to filter out distortion so this would explain the results of these test? Wouldn't it then also be possible to train your brain listening to audio equipment with relatively lower levels of noise/distortion, so that when you do these test, they can then readily identify the relatively high levels of noise distortion?

In other words the subjects, including the so called audiophiles, have already been preconditioned to these test by their experience with common audio equipment and not so common audio equipment with relatively high levels of distortion which would render the test inconclusive.

 

[sarscott]

Another way that may help communicate what I am saying is to take the example of computer monitors. I have a 165hz computer monitor and before this monitor I used a 60hz monitor. When I first got the 165hz monitor the frame rates in games looked smooth. Now that I am accustomed to the 165hz refresh rate I do not perceive a smoothness to games. The 165hz refresh rate has become normalized for me.

When I switch the monitor back to 60hz after using the monitor at 165hz for 6 months I cannot stand the stuttering at the 60hz refresh rate as the I easily detect the jitter, missing frames and associated frame tearing. Yet I never noticed the stuttering and tearing frames prior to experiencing 165hz.

To sum up concisely:

When I was preconditioned to the 60hz refresh rate, i did not see the frame tearing.

After I was preconditioned to the 165hz refresh rate I clearly saw the frame tearing, i.e. video distortion, when I switched to 60hz

I realize this is comparing visual aspects to auditory aspects but is it not reasonable to assume the brain works in a very similar manner when dealing with noise distortion as with video distortion, i.e. frame tearing?

Is it not reasonable to conclude this is exactly what is occurring in these audio test?

 

[amirm]

Another way that may help communicate what I am saying is to take the example of computer monitors. I have a 165hz computer monitor and before this monitor I used a 60hz monitor. When I first got the 165hz monitor the frame rates in games looked smooth. Now that I am accustomed to the 165hz refresh rate I do not perceive a smoothness to games. The 165hz refresh rate has become normalized for me.

When I switch the monitor back to 60hz after using the monitor at 165hz for 6 months I cannot stand the stuttering at the 60hz refresh rate as the I easily detect the jitter, missing frames and associated frame tearing. Yet I never noticed the stuttering and tearing frames prior to experiencing 165hz.

To sum up concisely:

When I was preconditioned to the 60hz refresh rate, i did not see the frame tearing.

After I was preconditioned to the 165hz refresh rate I clearly saw the frame tearing, i.e. video distortion, when I switched to 60hz

I realize this is comparing visual aspects to auditory aspects but is it not reasonable to assume the brain works in a very similar manner when dealing with noise distortion as with video distortion, i.e. frame tearing?

Is it not reasonable to conclude this is exactly what is occurring in these audio test?

Not in this context.

What if you went from 165 Hz to 1000 Hz? You think going back and forth will have the same effect as 60 Hz to 165? How about 2000 Hz? How about 10,000 Hz? You agree that gets beyond silly, right? That is exactly what Rob Watts is trying to sell us. That the equiv. of 2000 Hz is distinguishable and easily so than 500 Hz.

Within the limits of our perception, changing the bandwidth/temporal resolution, etc. of course is appreciated. And as you say, going backward can be more noticeable. That is not the issue. The issue is when we go beyond our perception. There, by definition more technical goodness is NOT perceived.

 

[amirm]

So these test are inconclusive as you cannot differentiate if the subjects simply cannot hear the distortion according to the limits of our hearing mechanisms, or if the subjects cannot hear the distortion because the brain is effectively filtering out the distortion.

If the subjects routinely filter distortions, then what is your argument again for wanting less distortion? If they can't hear 2.5% distortion, what hope is there for them hearing 0.00001% less distortion?

So no, the tests are quite conclusive. They have been confirmed time and time again. It is for this reason that the entire science of audio testing insists on fast switching, not long term. You will be laughed out of the AES conference to suggest otherwise. Or ASA in the context of acoustic and auditory science.

You really want to re-write audio science here. I get it. As a person outside of the industry/reserach community, you are going by what you hear on the Internet. But that doesn't make your intuition right. The whole industry including countless researchers, engineers and luminaries can't be stupid to be relying on short-term testing.

I have also given you personal evidence. I have also explained how you can experience the same.

There is no there, there. Please don't believe stuff you read and suppositions invented online. Audio science here is well researched, hugely practiced and is exactly the opposite of what subjectivist audiophiles believe.

 

[amirm]

Isn't it possible that because people listen to mostly listen to audio equipment that has relatively high levels of noise that they have trained their brain to filter out distortion so this would explain the results of these test?

Our measurements of digital audio equipment, especially DACs, show them to be amazingly clean. Out of some 50 to 70 DACs I have tested, maybe a couple have had issues. So no, there is no getting used to distortions in those products.

The explanation remains beyond simple: subjective, sighted listening generates total garbage as far as results. Nothing is reliable about it. You can't possibly use the outcomes as gospel and then search for explanations.

Take the Schiit Yggdrasil DAC. Thousands and thousand have been sold and people swear by them. Yet here is how someone rated them using his subjective testing:

Bottom of the list. Your favorite and topic of this thread is #8. You think there is any chance this is right? Of course not. None of them are right because they don't control all factors that lead us to vote for one thing versus another. We must limit it to sound and sound alone. Since that is never done in subjective testing, the results are just random.

 

[amirm]

In other words the subjects, including the so called audiophiles, have already been preconditioned to these test by their experience with common audio equipment and not so common audio equipment with relatively high levels of distortion which would render the test inconclusive.

So when subjectivist audiophiles fail a test they are "so called audiophiles?" If they had not, you would be praising them, right? That kind of partisanship has no place in an informed discussion. They were real subjectivist audiophiles who like you, refused to accept the results of quick, ABX testing. So at great expense and effort, test fixtures were built for them to test as they wished. They failed the test. Anyone logical needs to take a step back, let the message sink in, have it change their mind. Accusing the testers to be less than real audiophiles is disingenuous.

 

[Thomas savage]

I read almost every post and respond yet you say I don't and then confess not knowing my own position (whatever that is).

You are trolling me like other people here in that you have not read my posts, like other people here, nor made a fair attempt at understanding my position, like other people here, and are just harassing me, like other people here.

No I’m not trolling you, The ‘ whatever that is ‘ relates to the fact you have not properly substantiated your position ( and still have not).

It’s everyone else’s responsibility but yours it seems , you have actually been very disrespectful to the community at large but i doubt you know why.

Having strong opinions ( convictions) while bereft of and ignoring knowledge and subsequent supportive and well regarded research in the context of this forum is not desirable . There’s a word for this , I will let you research it yourself.

I’m not willing to allow our members to be the subject of your continued barrage (70 odd posts in a few days) of unsubstantiated argumentative dogma.

Temporary Thread ban issued , I asked you once now please go and do some research yourself and make a convincing argument to substantiate your position. You are free to post in other areas of the forum . Please don’t start a new thread to continue this fruitless back and forth.

Thank you.

 

[March Audio]

As a rule, few musicians are audiophiles. Many have "crappy" audio system by high-end audiophile standards.

You can record something on cassette tape or in MP3s and they can evaluate it on musical basis as well as uncompressed music on $500,000 system. Indeed countless musicians only listen to music on headphones and iphones.

At Rocky Mountain Audio Fest last year, Blue Coast music had some of their artist come and play live. After one of the performances finished, I asked Cookie Marenco (owner of the labels) if she "sweetens" the mix with reverb and such. She said of course. The signer was shocked. She said that she hated that and wanted the sound to be as we were hearing it there (dead). Cookie then asked for the audiophiles in the room to raise their hand on which way they wanted it, and all said with the reverb!

So don't confuse what musicians want and audiophiles want. Audiophiles want that reverb because that would make them think there is detail, resolution, air, etc. even though it is all artificial.

I have a great example recording of raw and after mixing that demonstrates this perfectly. I will sort it out and provide a link later.

 

[March Audio]

OK, here are the promised files. Now they are not mine to distribute so please bear in mind its just for example purpose. Its a recording of a local amateur big band. I didnt record this particular session, but I have others and performed live sound duties at gigs for them. Not easy with 20 open mics and about 1 1/2 hours to set up

Three tracks, one is the original raw unmixed off the desk. Drizabone. One Other is a mix done by myself, very conservative adjustments in terms of EQ, reverb etc and no compression. Also done on headphones which was IMO a big mistake. You simply dont mix the soundstage correctly. Third by someone with a fair amount of experience and runs his own small studio. There is a marked difference between them, the latter being what you might say is a more commercial sort of mix.

Basically dont understimate what goes on in recording studios and how much "messing" with the sound is done. Whilst of course you can get excellent natural sound by careful choice and placement of mics in the right venue, that is a challenge.

https://1drv.ms/f/s!ArrRmm5NHHD0_U-pdiFAHiBI9NLE

 

[Soniclife]

Three tracks, one is the original raw unmixed off the desk. Drizabone. One Other is a mix done by myself, very conservative adjustments in terms of EQ, reverb etc and no compression. Also done on headphones which was IMO a big mistake. You simply dont mix the soundstage correctly. Third by someone with a fair amount of experience and runs his own small studio. There is a marked difference between them, the latter being what you might say is a more commercial sort of mix.

I prefer the Tony version, which has the most adjustments, I'm not surprised by this personal preference.

Basically dont understimate what goes on in recording studios and how much "messing" with the sound is done. Whilst of course you can get excellent natural sound by careful choice and placement of mics in the right venue, that is a challenge.

I'm constantly amazed by how audiophiles seem to think recordings are pure and little messed with, I don't work in the music industry, but the little I know says almost everything released commercially is heavily processed, to the extent that lots is almost totally invented inside gear.

The following two interviews are illuminating, and these are from the classical end of the spectrum.

https://www.soundonsound.com/people/max-richter

The washy sound you hear on 'Shadow Journal' is the shredded viola loop I spoke about. It's a viola player playing the chord sequence in arpeggios, and I've treated it, cutting off the low end below 400Hz and the top end above 1500Hz, using a GRM band-pass filter plug-in that's very dirty and very brutal. This left only the inner harmonics of the viola part, so it gets this nice whooshy, rather mysterious analogue feel.

https://www.soundonsound.com/people/agnes-obel

I tried to sing the song with my normal voice and it just sounded less interesting than with this male version of myself. I tried the Waves [SoundShifter], but the Pitch Shifter in Logic was the one I liked most. It made the voice sound really sort of scary almost. [Laughs] You’d be surprised how many people thought it wasn’t really me

I like to use the reverbs, like the Lexicon and I use some of the tape effects sometimes, but not always. I can’t always tell if I really can hear the difference. It’s sort of psychological.

My bold, seems apt for this forum.

I like both of these artists a lot FWIW.

 

[March Audio]

I prefer the Tony version, which has the most adjustments, I'm not surprised by this personal preference.

I'm constantly amazed by how audiophiles seem to think recordings are pure and little messed with, I don't work in the music industry, but the little I know says almost everything released commercially is heavily processed, to the extent that lots is almost totally invented inside gear.

The following two interviews are illuminating, and these are from the classical end of the spectrum.

https://www.soundonsound.com/people/max-richter


https://www.soundonsound.com/people/agnes-obel




My bold, seems apt for this forum.

I like both of these artists a lot FWIW.

Yep, I would expect Tony's version to be favoured by most listeners.

 

[RayDunzl]

Yep, I would expect Tony's version to be favoured by most listeners.

It's louder...



How many tracks were in the raw recording?

 

[March Audio]

Yep, compressed too. About 20 mics for the whole band

 

[Gabe]

Approaching this with an open mind. The Chord M Scaler has a pass-through mode, apparently with filter gain equalized for blind-tests.
Assuming there is a material difference hearing it between on and off, what would be the cause of the sound difference? Higher taps or the upscaling? Or a hidden filter change?

 

[SIY]

Approaching this with an open mind. The Chord M Scaler has a pass-through mode, apparently with filter gain equalized for blind-tests.
Assuming there is a material difference hearing it between on and off...

Stop right there.

 

[Gabe]

Supposedly with easy A/B testing allowed by the on/off pass-through switch, Chord must be confident there is a sound change; unless they are relying on psychoacoustics?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Supposedly with easy A/B testing allowed by the on/off pass-through switch, Chord must be confident there is a sound change; unless they are relying on psychoacoustics?

Assuming the filter doesn’t effect level or frequency response within the audio band, which it shouldn’t I guess, but would need to measure to be sure.

Also FYI, I think you meant relying on psychology, not psychoacoustics?

It’s the former that is influenced by knowledge, expectation, bias, etc. The latter is about how the auditory system processes sound and is not in general subject to these factors.

 

[Gabe]

Thanks Andreasmaaan. You're right. I meant psychology.

I would be an interesting device for Amir to test!

 

[tomelex]

My point is that common test for music fidelity are limited to brief periods of listening where the whole scenario of the test itself can cause bias and/or misleading conclusions. I do not know of any study that included extended listening periods to document the effects either positive or negative. I do not know of any exhaustive study done with listening. There are no tests that can be done that can conclusively prove anything you assert as the brain is the greatest unknown variable and is poorly understood in terms of how we perceive audio.

My other point is everyone hears differently and you can't explain the brain differences that cause people to perceive audio differently.

You have your perception and other people have their perception. There is no science to explain the difference as we don't understand how the brain works in sufficient detail.

While I respond to Sarscott, this is really for all believers in their hearing as a means to proclaim device a is better than b through long term listening.

This is a serious audiophile misconception. The idea that long term listening is not possible with blind testing, and that you need to listen for a long period of time to "determine" it "sounds good/right/correct or it is better than the other component you are comparing.

Sarscott mentions that the brain is the greatest unknown variable, but refuses to believe it. It is for sure. So, here is my point, so you are listening away for some/any period of time (double blind or not A/B or not makes no difference) and then like a bolt of lightning out of the blue, you "decide" that this device "sounds" "better/more accurate/whatever" than the other device.

SO, what all of the sudden changed at that moment in time for you to conclude that? The equipment did not change (this is long term listening), the sound source did not change, but your "brain internal workings below the subconscious level or maybe for some at the conscious level" send a decision to "the part of the brain that you think is you---yeah good luck with that rabbit hole" or you have a "feeling" and there you go. You have made a decision.

Your decision is simply that you have "simultaneously accepted and agreed with yourself!!!!!" at this point in time via not your hearing but your brains interpretation and internal black magic processes , and by decided i mean this thought arose from somewhere in the unknown world of your brain that you like it all of the sudden, and all that you have accomplished is that your responded to an idea floated up from the dark magic of your brain, just like you do for any decision that you think you are taking when "art/human complexity" is involved vs cold hard facts.

Caveot of course is all this is about minor differences that are hard to hear when you concentrate or not, and not about glaring differences that are of a level that are audible.

When you can explain how that idea rose up from the black magic brain and at a particular point in time, then we can talk about taking your word for something vs measurable signal analysis.

 

[FrantzM]

Took me long time .. I have come to term with the fact that audiophilia is not a serious disease.. Those who indulge in it are those who can afford to and it hurts absolutely nobody and nothing, not even the audiophile financial situation: No one buys a $100,000 DAC which may be topped by a $100 Topping D10(?) and find himself (always a "him") suffering the financial consequences of his acquisition; all the contrary: he feels good about himself about his superior abilities both to make money and to hear things mere mortals can't ...
It's all good unless they try to crucify Science on the altar of their ignorance, else let them spend their money while we are enjoying much better sound in systems whose price is what they pay for their XLR connectors ...