The only ''definitive'' answer in this Subjective world is...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great. I would like to find out more about how the experiments are conducted, particularly details that may be omitted from publication for whatever reason. Might be very interesting.

Also, don't know if anybody in this thread participated in PMA's hi-res listening test here in the forum not too long ago. There were some interesting and perhaps inexplicable results. Would be nice to have an expert around who might be willing to offer some thoughts on it.
 
Konzentr8 said:
But whats really sad , in my opinion , is spending thousands on a system , hundreds more on those audiophile recordings by artists you don't even like , then discovering that the technically ' perfect ' equipment you own bores you to tears simply because shock horror you actually prefer a ' bright , warm , bassy , etc ' sound far more than than the
impeccably neutral ' audiophile ' one that someone else insisted is the only way you can possibly enjoy music .
Click to expand...
It is far more common the other way round: someone who likes 'bright', 'warm' etc. tries to insist that his preference has better fidelity than a neutral system. I tend to use the term 'audiophile' to refer to the former person, and say 'hi-fi enthisiast' for the person who prefers a neutral system. A hi-fi enthuisiast says that he prefers neutral, but he would never insist that others should prefer it too; he does insist (rightly) that neutral has higher fidelity.

The test for an audiophile is: do I like it? Do I enjoy the music?
The test for a hi-fi enthusiast is: does this sound like the original?

Be aware that there is another definition of audiophile: someone who tolerates the music so he can listen to his equipment.
 
Markw4 said:
On the subject of audibility, what is inaudible to whom under what circumstances and how to best measure that, there seems to be reason to believe we aren't fully there yet in terms of our knowledge (although others may disagree).
Click to expand...
planet10 said:
Very much so.

dave
Click to expand...
It gets back to the question, which audible sound isn't measurable with today's measuring technology? The answer is none.

Which measurable sound isn't audible to us? The answer is lots.
 
People can be fatigued by sounds they aren't even aware of. This has been demonstrated in at least a couple of tests.

Also, exposure to loud supersonic sounds can affect your hearing long term and short term. Even though you can't hear the sound, your ear goes into compression mode (becomes less sensitive or "turns the volume down"). This will affect your hearing of audible sound and also cause distress (like a headache or general feeling of malaise).

This is physiology. Ask an audiologist or speech and hearing specialist.
 
Fast Eddie D said:
People can be fatigued by sounds they aren't even aware of. This has been demonstrated in at least a couple of tests.

Also, exposure to loud supersonic sounds can affect your hearing long term and short term. Even though you can't hear the sound, your ear goes into compression mode (becomes less sensitive or "turns the volume down"). This will affect your hearing of audible sound and also cause distress (like a headache or general feeling of malaise).

This is physiology. Ask an audiologist or speech and hearing specialist.
Click to expand...
We are dealing with sound reproducing electronics here, aren't we? The term hi-fi is a criteria in which the quality of those electronics' performance is judged. Without such criteria, it's wild wild west, anything goes including crap products.
 
planet10 said:
For one I have yet to see a measurement that quantifies DDR (ability to reproduce small detail). Or the ability to throw a realistic 3D soundstage/image/

dave
Click to expand...
It's been explained already that any change in soundwaves that causes the change in perceivable soundstage to us can be shown in graphic form, i.e. frequency response chart.

Did you know that the frequency response chart can show the changes that are too small for us to perceive the change in soundstage? Think about that for a moment.
 
I doubt it's possible to measure the subjective effects of psychoacoustics without running a brain scan and then having an "expert" interpret the results with relation to the things that a microphone and software can measure simultaneously
 
Evenharmonics said:
We are dealing with sound reproducing electronics here, aren't we? The term hi-fi is a criteria in which the quality of those electronics' performance is judged. Without such criteria, it's wild wild west, anything goes including crap products.
Click to expand...

Straw man much?

I was referring to empirically observable physiological effects. The US military even uses this concept to provide non-lethal deterrent. Look up "sound cannons."

Your sound reproducing equipment is capable of reproducing supersonic distortion artifacts if they are produced. Your sound reproducing equipment is capable of producing harmonic and intermodulation artifacts, some of which can be supersonic. You can measure and observe it.

Not empirical enough for you?
 
scottjoplin said:
I doubt it's possible to measure the subjective effects of psychoacoustics without running a brain scan and then having an "expert" interpret the results with relation to the things that a microphone and software can measure simultaneously
Click to expand...

It is finally the dawn of a time when this is going to be possible, with a number of small affordable wireless EEG machines now on the market. Like these. MUSE ™ | Meditation Made Easy

dave
 
What would be interesting is to have a set of headphones what had perfect reproduction
and was also tuned to an individuals hearing so that all sounds were of equal intensity.
 
planet10 said:
It is finally the dawn of a time when this is going to be possible, with a number of small affordable wireless EEG machines now on the market. Like these. MUSE ™ | Meditation Made Easy

dave
Click to expand...

Psychoacoustics is real. I've had people (usually musicians) mock me for referring to it, but it's a fact that our ears work in a certain way and it's a fact that our brain interprets the signals our ears transmit to it in a certain way. It's a fact that our hearing is extremely sensitive to some things (like targeting the location of a sound) and grossly insensitive to other things (like small changes in sound pressure level). That's because our hearing isn't a microphone and an oscilloscope. It's an integrated system fine tuned by evolution to provide features crucial to our survival as hunters and gatherers. Nature never intended for us to artificially reproduce sound and muse over our system's shortcomings. In the cavemen days, that and $4.00 would get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top