Take my word for it, or don't. Look for examples, or don't. That is entirely up to you. Your answer sort of proves my point about the overdrawn conclusions of SOME of the engineer types on the forum. If I don't hand you on a platter an example of somebody overstepping the conclusions of a measurement, then it doesn't happen. I was only asking you to consider the fact that some people do this. If you require proof of that from me for you to believe it, then go on not believing it. I don't want to present an example so that you can go and try to pick that particular one apart. I have already spent more time tilting at windmills than it was worth. Ignore my post... Maybe some other readers will consider it.
I was just hoping some people would take a second to do a little internal reflection and consider if they are guilty of doing this themselves.
Also, in defense of my second example being different: That is because I am only pointing out a trend. Just a general mood on this forum that I have perceived over the last few months since I returned after a hiatus, not pointing to any one specific example.
Last edited:
But earler, "Points like this are made daily. If you don't see it, it's because you don't want to, and I am not going to dig around the forum to prove something that you want to close your eyes to."
So is it just a trend or obvious and every day?
The maker of a claim has to back it up, not expect others to disprove it.
Last edited:
Should I just take your word at this? Where is this rule of life you state?
I was trying to encourage self-reflection. I have no horse in this race. Don't believe me if it is too hard for you to reflect for a second.
How can you possibly think that we have in the past 100 or so years come up w/ methods to measure sound that beats millions of years worth of evolution in biological ears?!? Especially when we're talking about audio reproduction for the purpose of listening to, with our biological ears?
I recently read a medical journal about a person who is blind and deaf in one ear. They can get around just fine in the real 3d world, using echo location w/ only one ear!! Something that is technically, w/ current understanding of sound and measurement, impossible!
That's just one example of many... and like I said in a previous post, it's widely accepted that our taste, smell, touch, and sight beat any machines we have made.
Actually, I was at an audiologist earlier today working on his computers, so just called him and posed the question, do you think we can hear things we cannot measure....
He says yes, w/out a doubt. They are medically, scientifically, in his profession, trying to come up w/ ways to measure and explain things we can detect w/ our ears, and they can not do it.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Michalos, "Principles of Logic," p.370 "...one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it."
Dame, "Attacking Faulty Reasoning," p. 15 "The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position."
How many more references would you like?
Then please, enlighten me.
And maybe you aren't good w/ English, but that wasn't a remark. It was a question, because I'm not an *** that just makes remarks and pretends they are fact.
we/our neural layers, brain can process sensory input to infer many things about a restricted expectation/model of the environment we evolved in that is built in to the lower feature extraction layers of neural processing - and tosses lots of information that doesn't match those filters
but many audio snake oil claims fail in the basic physics, signal theory, and/or are below human hearing threshold in a anechoic chamber after minutes of accommodation - when you can hear your blood flow noise
many of us engineers with an interest in audio have read the occasional psychoacoustics texts, papers too - which shows that the human audio sensory processing is in fact very lossy - microphones, ADC, fft can see lots that can't be heard due to frequency and temporal masking in music
putting numbers on subjective perception isn't easy - but often the existing body of engineering and psychoacoustic knowledge can rank as "highly unlikely" some audiophile claims when you actually run the numbers and compare intelligently
controlled, blinded listening tests can move the needle - there is still much to be learned - but audiophiles aren't contributing to the advancement when they reject the tools found necessary for turning subjective perceptions into actionable data
but many audio snake oil claims fail in the basic physics, signal theory, and/or are below human hearing threshold in a anechoic chamber after minutes of accommodation - when you can hear your blood flow noise
many of us engineers with an interest in audio have read the occasional psychoacoustics texts, papers too - which shows that the human audio sensory processing is in fact very lossy - microphones, ADC, fft can see lots that can't be heard due to frequency and temporal masking in music
putting numbers on subjective perception isn't easy - but often the existing body of engineering and psychoacoustic knowledge can rank as "highly unlikely" some audiophile claims when you actually run the numbers and compare intelligently
controlled, blinded listening tests can move the needle - there is still much to be learned - but audiophiles aren't contributing to the advancement when they reject the tools found necessary for turning subjective perceptions into actionable data
Last edited:
JCX, That makes sense, and then it starts to get complex, because there are definitely things we can measure w/ machines that beat our senses by huge orders of magnitude (try looking at the pillars of creation w/ your naked eyes), but otoh, there are things we can sense which we cannot measure...
Unfortunately, I think audio covers both of those things... we can certainly measure frequencies we cannot hear, etc... But I'm sure we can also hear things we cannot measure. (and you can go ask an audiologist, and they will professionally agree)
Unfortunately, I think audio covers both of those things... we can certainly measure frequencies we cannot hear, etc... But I'm sure we can also hear things we cannot measure. (and you can go ask an audiologist, and they will professionally agree)
Not so much, no. The mysteries are in the brain processing (viz, your blind and half deaf guy example), not in the ears. With a single mike, record the sound made by a clicker. Now move it a couple feet and record it again. Want to wager that the waveforms won't be the same?
Before you write it off, consider the following:
What the ENT and author of that journal may have missed, was that the technology that we have today can measure changes far smaller than the human typmanic membrane, anvil, and cochlea can even respond to, due to system's inherent mass, shape, and purposeful design. The auditory system can detect changes down to about 80dB below the fundamental audio signals, at best. The best measurement gear can discern changes down to -200dB, and readily available spectrum analyzers can operate clearly down to -170. That is a $40k analyzer, but the tech is there. An audio waveform in electronics operates in a two-dimensional realm, and it can be easily captured, quantified, and repeated. In physical audio there is a third dimension, but it can be captured, too. The brain interprets direction by how the incoming wavefront distorts as it strikes the ear lobe, the canal, and eventually propagates to the tympanic membrane. In that way, much of what is hear, or better put- perceived- is a product of the brain and not the ears. That is much more difficult to put on paper, but much has been done. That phenomenon has been well on it's way to being mapped, and formed the basis for technologies that are just beginning to see applied well in the consumerist audio markets, today.
It goes back to the earlier half of the nine-teen seventies, and later, corporations like Dobly Labs used it to develop surround sound and virtual speaker placement. By superimposing distortions upon the signal modulus that replicate how the ear modifying the acoustic stimulus, they can convincingly recreate the effects of speakers in locations, including behind the listener, where there is no point source. A number of loudspeakers have played on this tactic for giving the illusion of a larger soundstage and sharp imaging. The signal can actually be tailored to enhance each of these aspects of perception. The spinoffs are also being used by the military for situations such as riot control.
Controlled ABX testing has already dispelled many dogmatic myths around second ordered harmonics being musical whilst third order was previously believed to be harsh, inorganic, and musically unrelated. The truth was quite the opposite, and those old wive's tales originated with audio magazines and designers of whom had an agenda, but no scientifically qualified background to make the claim. I recall several editors, of whom many audiophiles religiously followed, stating that third-order harmonics were unnatural. But a talented Canadian engineer took the time to show something they ignored- Third order harmonics were inherent in many wind and several string instruments and the primary order of distortion. It was musical. Some of the highest regarded loudspeakers of all time including electrostatics, were predominantly third ordered in harmoneous nature. In short, every myth in audio stemmed from simple honest mistake, to blatant pseudoscience belief systems and the lack of knowledge. Even today, people read the literature and take it as truth without question the source thereof. I have learned that I can place much more trust in the findings of licensed engineers and myself, because I understand the controlled conditions for a level playing field. When it comes to magazines, bloggers and hobbyists, we have to do small background checks on where that data originates, and if it's biased. One could surmise that back years ago, the first on the scene counted on nobody ever having the knowledge, nor materials to validate it themselves. This is no longer the case.
The problem is that many people are having trouble letting go of the older belief systems. People tend to believe what they find on Wikipedia, in audio magazines, and what else can be sourced on blogs through the internet. If the new and accurate data is not easily assessable, and it often may only be found in scholarly journals and amongst those who work with it, it is otherwise much easier to assume that it doesn't exist. Many individuals believe there has been little to no audio research taken place within the past several decades, but that would an incorrect assumption. It is something to consider.
Last edited:
I thought that as I was posting, but it didn't help my argument
I guess in the end, my point is what I last posted, and my conversation w/ Dr. Fawn, the Audiologist supported... I'm sure there are some things we can't yet measure, that matter to our brains when listening to music reproduction. And there are probably a lot of things we can measure that don't matter all that much to our brains when listening to music for pleasure.
I think it's arrogant for anyone to think their test equipment shows a definitive answer... (I think it's arrogant for any human to think what they have to say is definitive)
I thought that as I was posting, but it didn't help my argument
LOL! I owe you a beer.
The second part is unquestionably true. The first one... well, I'm unaware of anyone demonstrating a perceived audible difference without there being a corresponding measurable difference. Not surprising given that the ear is a pretty lousy transducer; it's amazing in that we would have difficulty duplicating its performance if (as Nature was) we were restricted to saltwater and jelly as our materials! Nonetheless, a microphone can do a far better job.
The interesting part, as you and I agree, is what happens afterwards, the processing in the salt water and jelly computer residing between the ears. And although we know a surprising amount about that (see, for example, Jan Didden's and my review of the Smyth A8 in Linear Audio), we're far from finished.
If this is to me, I thought I agreed w/ you... I still think I basically agreed w/ you, and will just write this off as misunderstanding via text, that would probably be clear in conversation....
(unless you think there is nothing our mere human bodies can sense which we cannot measure w/ instrumentation, and in that case I guess we disagree)
Last edited:
then why keep repeating your audiologist quip - most snake oil make claims in the realm of physics, electrical signals, circuits - we can be very certain of the relative magnitudes of effects, know the limits
but claims about perception are fundamentally different - again about neural processing, complex internal mental states - always varying over time, by experiences, other inputs, even for the same individual, much less across a population
but claims about perception are fundamentally different - again about neural processing, complex internal mental states - always varying over time, by experiences, other inputs, even for the same individual, much less across a population
- Status
- Not open for further replies.