Audio Science Review

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

The reasons behind the observation that the earth is flat are well understood. 

Sure, but at the time the people saying that the world was round were ridiculed because the established science had not caught up. People were using poor tools and faulty reasoning to assert that the world was flat.

1 minute ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

Science is held back by having to waste energy on explaining observations that already have a well understood explanation. 

The well understood explanation is no more than a belief as yet unsubstantiated by science. It is akin to the flat earthers that you talk about

[sir sanders zingmore]

3 minutes ago, frednork said:

@Sir Sanders Zingmore, to clarify, the above is not targeted at you and apologies if it seemed to be.

All good. 

[sir sanders zingmore]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

The well understood explanation is no more than a belief as yet unsubstantiated by science. It is akin to the flat earthers that you talk about

In but a few words you destroy an entire body of research ... cry the poor neuroscientists and psychologists for they are flat earthers

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

In but a few words you destroy an entire body of research ... cry the poor neuroscientists and psychologists for they are flat earthers

 

I will agree if you can point to where the neuroscientists and psychologists have formulated an entire body of research about whether audiophiles can hear differences in cables. It never came up in the tea room where I worked let alone the subject of an entire body of research.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

20 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

Science is held back by having to waste energy on explaining observations that already have a well understood explanation.

Then perhaps consider letting people have their observations and enjoy their hobby without need for explanation on either side.

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

An observation is the cornerstone of established science and it is how science progresses through hypothesis formulation and testing.

Of course, but science chooses the best evidence, and if it is not readily at hand pursues the obtaining of it. 

 

Human hearing of music involves higher brain functions to a considerable extent and so what a human being reports about their hearing experience is not simple and direct reporting akin to whether litmus paper is seen to change colour in a chemistry experiment. It is a combination of the brain receiving raw nervous impulse data from the ears and very considerable filtering and interpretation of that data to try to make sense of it.

 

If science wants to know whether the output of an audio power amplifier increases or decreases as a result of changing the power cable, science will measure the output of the amplifier, very accurately indeed.  It would be inappropriate to ask a human being to try to perform that task, for at least four reasons.  Firstly our JND threshold for loudness is around 1dB or under ideal conditions perhaps as good as 0.2B and changing a power cord could be expected to result in a change  in output level of less than 0.2dB.  Secondly, if listening out for extremely small changes in loudness, human hearing perception will often create a feeling or hunch something has changed in loudness even if extremely precise measurement shows that the loudness has remained unchanged.  Thirdly, if loudness does vary by 1dB or more we as human beings lack an ability to quantify the extent of the loudness change with precision. Fourthly, our ability to perceive a very small change in loudness only works for us for a few seconds after hearing the reference level.  That is not enough time generally speaking to change a power cord and switch a power amplifier back on again.

Edited August 8, 2019 by MLXXX

[Guest Muon N']

1 hour ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

No. 

Just pointing to the logical conclusion of your stance. 

 

Green pens on cds

quantum dots 

peter belt 

 

occam is rolling in his grave 

It does appear passive aggressive on your part, Trev. Regardless  ya' intention.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

29 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

Of course, but science chooses the best evidence, and if it is not readily at hand pursues the obtaining of it. 

 

Human hearing of music involves higher brain functions to a considerable extent and so what a human being reports about their hearing experience is not simple and direct reporting akin to whether litmus paper is seen to change colour in a chemistry experiment. It is a combination of the brain receiving raw nervous impulse data from the ears and very considerable filtering and interpretation of that data to try to make sense of it.

 

If science wants to know whether the output of an audio power amplifier increases or decreases as a result of changing the power cable, science will measure the output of the amplifier, very accurately indeed.  It would be inappropriate to ask a human being to try to perform that task, for at least four reasons.  Firstly our JND threshold for loudness is around 1dB or under ideal conditions perhaps as good as 0.2B and changing a power cord could be expected to result in a change  in output level of less than 0.2dB. that. Secondly, if listening out for extremely small changes in loudness, human hearing perception will often create a feeling or hunch something has changed in loudness even if extremely precise measurement shows that the loudness has remained unchanged.  Thirdly, if loudness does vary by 1dB or more we as human beings lack an ability to quantify the extent of the loudness change with precision. Fourthly, our ability to perceive a very small change in loudness only works for us for a few seconds after hearing the reference level.  That is not enough time generally speaking to change a power cord and switch a power amplifier back on again.

I agree human perception is a complex interaction of higher brain function. I have no gripe with using audio measurements and correlating with listening. You have also given some reasons why blind testing ABX may produce a false negative.

 

I would also offer that hearing differences in cables and power cords has been strongly suggested  by Ethan Winer to be due to comb filtering ie nothing to do with the cables per se. I say sure, maybe. To be honest I am not the greatest fan of Ethan but merely reporting what he says, take it or leave it

 

For me, none of this changes that many audiophiles are less interested in proof or disproof and do not want to be challenged especially when ridiculing is involved or there is a sense of bullying.

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Audiophile Neuroscience

[rocky500]

7 hours ago, MLXXX said:

I hope this brief explanation may possibly help with an appreciation of why it is that some people take it upon themselves to do such things as encouraging audiophiles who think they hear a difference with cables, to do some simple cable swapping and unsighted listening!

 

No one has been able to post examples online of correctly identifying things like amps and Dacs etc with these tests.  Even though the measurements can show a difference. So there is no hope of these tests being able to be used with things like cables.

So why would anyone ask people to do these tests, when there will only ever be one result? The results to me looks very inconclusive and swayed totally to one side.  Also the effort involved to try and attempt them properly seems like such a waste of time when the results already seem dubious to me.

 

9 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

Of course, but science chooses the best evidence, and if it is not readily at hand pursues the obtaining of it. 

 

Being Sciency now, my science theory is from all the best evidence online with the tests already done I can find

Rocky theory is "DBT's /BT's are pretty well useless for people like us at home in determining a preference between 2 audio items with small differences"

Evidence seems to back it up nicely.

Best left for items like speakers. or the Pros like Harman Labs.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

Best left for items like speakers. or the Pros like Harman Labs.

I would cautiously point out that Harman International sell audio gear and their research, whoever is spearheading it, must be seen with at least some potential conflict of interest.

<quote> "our technical data are revealing" and " we do tests of these kinds at Harman International as a matter of routine, in competitive analysis of proposed new products".</quote>

 

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, rocky500 said:

No one has been able to post examples online of correctly identifying things like amps and Dacs etc with these tests.  Even though the measurements can show a difference. So there is no hope of these tests being able to be used with things like cables.

So why would anyone ask people to do these tests, when there will only ever be one result?

I gave you an example of a thread on SNA involving a listening test for lossy compressed versus original versions of music, where people were successful. Wasn't that the sort of thing you were after?

 

You say measurements can show differences with amps and DACS. Yes, but usually only very small differences.  If  people can't hear a difference where the measured difference is very small that should not come as a surprise. With DACs, some models have adjustable  filter settings and people have definitely been able to hear differences when the sample rate is 44.1kHz and the filter setting has been altered. There will be successful DBTs of that I'm sure.

 

 I don't know whether you are already aware of this but HydrogenAudio forum requires objective evidence. under Item 8 of its Terms of Service, which reads as follows:

 

TOS 8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims.  Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings.  Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

 

HydrogenAudio forum threads contain many examples of successful DBTs.

 

I myself wouldn't  expect people to try to set up a full blown DBT at the drop of a hat. However I would encourage people who think they hear a difference where only a minor change is involved (such as changing from one Toslink optical cable to another) to get a partner, family member or friend, to switch out the relevant item or not depending on a coin toss. When the audiophile re-enters their room it would be their job to express an opinion on whether a change had been made. They may suddenly find that the great sense of certainty they felt when "sighted" has disappeared.  (Of course if a component is changed that alters the loudness level, a gain setting would need to be changed to compensate for that.) 

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by MLXXX

[rocky500]

13 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

 

I don't know whether you are already aware of this but HydrogenAudio forum requires objective evidence. under Item 8 of its Terms of Service, which reads as follows:

 

So so so thankful SNA is nothing like that one!

Lets hope it can keep that way.

 

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

For me, none of this changes that many audiophiles are less interested in proof or disproof and do not want to be challenged especially when ridiculing is involved or there is a sense of bullying.

It  does appear to be the case that a proportion of audiophiles are not very interested in proof or disproof.

 

As regards "bullying" or "ridicule", that is a two way street. A well-intentioned suggestion about how to do a very simple listening test that would take less than 5 minutes can be rebuffed aggressively. A report that a forum member has tried a recommended tweak and found it made no difference; rather than being accepted as evidence, can be dismissed as an example of a forum member with poor hearing, or having a system that lacks "resolution".

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by MLXXX

[Grant Slack]

Hello Trevor, David, and other readers,

 

Occam's Razor: when presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.

 

IMHO it is most advisable to apply this principle to audio, just like other natural investigations.

 

So, when one reads something like the not-untypical observation, "upon changing to the Super Addictz cable, the sound became more rounded, organic, liquid and natural, and I preferred it", let's take a look at the possible reactions (excluding disrespectful reactions).

• "May I ask a point of clarification, please? Did you conduct that listening test under controlled conditions?"
• "No, I simply changed the cable then listened again."
• "Thank you. When you say, "the sound", are you claiming that the sound waves in the room are the reason for your observation? Or are you not making that claim at all, and comfortable that your observation is completely explained by non-audio factors causing you to create the perception internally, in accordance with the best current scientific understanding of how human perception works in uncontrolled conditions?"
• "I am saying the sound changed in the room."
• "Then may I suggest that your conclusion is based on a test method that is inappropriate for that sort of conclusion. It is well understood that there is another explanation for your observation under those test conditions, and Occam's Razor says the other explanation should be adopted, since it involves no assumptions at all, whereas your claim assumes that you are invulnerable to normal human errors in perception in uncontrolled test conditions."
• Reaction A: "I have changed my mind. I am no longer saying that the sound changed in the room. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I will edit my earlier post accordingly."
• "My pleasure."
• Reaction B: "I trust my ears. I don't understand what you are saying. If science says that I should not trust my ears, then I have no use for that science and I distrust it. If I cannot make decisions based on what I hear with my own ears, how am I supposed to proceed? Purchasing equipment based on measurements alone is something I tried once, and my listening experience with that gear was very disengaging. I have to trust my ears."
• "By all means, trust your ears to guide your own purchases. I do that too. All I am saying is, if you want to make purchases based on sound in your room, then you need to change your listening conditions to controlled test conditions. Now, we all know that that is extremely difficult, but it is the only way to proceed if you have two requirements: it has to be the sound waves in the room, and it has to be your own perception. (And, when you get a "no difference" result, you can buy the cheaper item and the test was for a good reason after all. We all have a budget. We don't want to waste it on the wrong things.) But, if you are like me and most people, that is much too hard to do, for a hobby that is supposed to be fun. So it is practical and pretty normal to drop the requirement that "it has to be the sound waves in the room". By all means, proceed based on how your perception mechanism reacts to the full experience of a known component being inserted into the chain. I do! But we have gone slightly off topic. The only reason I interjected about your report, is because, just like so many reports, including the so-called 'subjective audio review' by experienced reviewers, your report gives readers a pretty strong impression that the sound in the room is the thing that is changing and being adjudicated. That's not fair to the readers. We shouldn't do that, and I object to it, for reasons explained above. If the test is not appropriate for that conclusion, then either change the test or don't give the impression it is all about the sound waves in the room. It is very unfair to readers to report it that way."
• "Okay, I am following you now. I, too, don't want to give the wrong impression. I'm going to edit my report. In fact, now that I think about it, I'm going to be a bit more circumspect about reporting on my impressions, especially for things with tiny measured differences. It really probably isn't the sound waves, the way I do my listening test. Occam's Razor and all that. Thanks for discussing this."
• "My pleasure."

 

I think that exhausts the options, without letting disrespect enter the dialog. Comments like "science can't prove anything", "DBTs are unreliable" are IMO too aggressive, and disrespectful in their way. And all for what purpose? To support sighted listening impressions as being about audible changes in the sound waves in the room? 

 

Regards,

Grant

[sir sanders zingmore]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Then perhaps consider letting people have their observations and enjoy their hobby without need for explanation on either side.

No one needs to explain anything 

[Guest Muon N']

53 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

So so so thankful SNA is nothing like that one!

Lets hope it can keep that way.

 

Yup! I'll place that site on my black list, life is too short.

[Grant Slack]

22 hours ago, Grant Slack said:

...One other point, if I may. I read a comment earlier in this thread, that I have also heard confirmed by Toole: that it is one thing to be able to detect a difference at all between two things, but it is not the same as having a reliable preference for one over the other. And it is the latter that matters. Toole's book devotes no space to exploring the limits of human detection by ear, except a few pages about how high and wide does a frequency response variation have to be, to be heard. Instead, he writes at great length about discovering what we prefer in our reproduced sound. And that is the nub and the hub of what we, in my opinion, need to focus on as audiophiles, in our pursuit of relevant excellence.

 

20 hours ago, LHC said:

You have made some fair points in your post, so good on you. I hope my response below is also fair as well.

 

As we know Toole and his colleagues focused predominately on testing speakers and room interactions (and Olive branched out to headphones).  Does your call for pursuit of relevant excellence include amplifiers, sources (analog or digital), recording methods (I think MQA may be relevant here), and dare I say, some tweaks like isolation? I understand they have lower level of effects compared with speakers and room, so I guess that is where you are potentially heading towards.  

Hi there,

 

I am struggling a bit to understand your question properly. Perhaps my post above is a partial response?

 

Regards,
Grant

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

No one needs to explain anything 

Sarcasm and ridicule is not needed either but I wager that's what elicits most of the responses. 

[Guest Muon N']

51 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

It  does appear to be the case that a proportion of audiophiles are not very interested in proof or disproof.

 

As regards "bullying" or "ridicule", that is a two way street. A well-intentioned suggestion about how to do a very simple listening test that would take less than 5 minutes can be rebuffed aggressively. A report that a forum member has tried a recommended tweak and found it made no difference; rather than being accepted as evidence, can be dismissed as an example of a forum member with poor hearing, or having a system that lacks "resolution".

 

But how many hobbyists are vaguely interested in doing something like a DBT, a real small minority IMO, so if the suggestion gets a cold response this is why and is not surprising.

[Grant Slack]

4 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

Yup! I'll place that site on my black list, life is too short.

I got more the opposite impression: that their conditions are there because they think that life is too short for continuing circular arguments without credible evidence. Therefor, someone who thinks life is too short might have more reason to go there than stay in this thread!  

Edited August 8, 2019 by Grant Slack

[Guest Muon N']

6 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

I got more the opposite impression: that their conditions are there because they think that life is too short for continuing circular arguments without credible evidence. Therefor, someone who thinks life is too short might have more reason to go there than stay in this thread!  

You get that impression as it aligns with your bias.

[sir sanders zingmore]

24 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Sarcasm and ridicule is not needed either but I wager that's what elicits most of the responses. 

Perhaps you aren’t meaning to imply that I’m being sarcastic or ridiculing anyone. But it does come across that way. 

 

My comment was serious. This sub forum is where people should expect vigorous debate. But no one is being forced to participate or defend themselves. The can choose to do so of course 

[sir sanders zingmore]

30 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Sarcasm and ridicule is not needed either but I wager that's what elicits most of the responses. 

Indeed 

35 minutes ago, DJGopal said:

If you can't hear the difference in cables, this really isn't the hobby for you.

 

 

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, Muon N' said:

You get that impression as it aligns with your bias.

I've noticed that it is not uncommon for forum participants to get a triple whammy, being accused of "owning a poor resolving system",  "having poor hearing", and "suffering from bias".

 

In addition to being told they are biased, they also may be informed they "have a closed mind".   

 

Such is life on audio forums!  Arguably these types of accusations breach the being "respectful of others views" guideline.

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by MLXXX

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

17 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

But how many hobbyists are vaguely interested in doing something like a DBT, a real small minority IMO, so if the suggestion gets a cold response this is why and is not surprising.

I agree. I think the other issue is that people have become quite sensitized to these challenges and see them as unwelcome. They are sometimes but not always presented in a sarcastic or belittling manner. The other scenario of "may I politely point out to you why you are totally wrong and I am totally  right" doesn't go over much better in my experience, seen as condescending, and especially when what follows is on closer inspection looking suspiciously like a faith based belief.

It also has derailed more threads than anything else I can think of.