I take it then that the content was AI generated..
It is accepted practice to cite sources. There are members here who wish to choose whether to spend their time reading or correcting AI content, so your understanding will be appreciated.
AI is improving every day, but I have corrected AI in the past and still find myself boxing Ai into corners using logic, or at least my own logic. You will end up saving face citing AI when used for content because it generates large amounts of content on whim and can be completely off. Super fast also means Super large fck ups when they do happen... but as long as you cite it as AI, people kinda expect to handle the information carefully as it can provide you with some of the most eloquently written BS that you've ever heard. Depending on the audience it will be taken as Gold instead of expected to be cross referenced with Carbon based Experts.. For example
Grok Says;
Crystal: "You likely have acute pitch sensitivity—dissonance causes physical unease."
I fall into this category, it truly hurts, as I explained to a beginner flute player (my son) but also true, If I told the AI to make up some realistic sounding BS that is 100% false, it will do that too... Which one is above... You don't know, but as long as you know its AI, you know that it could be either.
Grok Says;
Crystal: "You likely have acute pitch sensitivity—dissonance causes physical unease."
Why This Happens
Your reaction—physical pain from off-tuned notes—suggests a heightened auditory and emotional response, possibly tied to biology and psychology:- Auditory Sensitivity:
- Pitch Discrimination: Humans detect pitch shifts ~1-5 cents (1/100th of a semitone)—you’re likely at the sharp end (e.g., <1 cent). Off-tuned notes (e.g., 440 Hz vs. 445 Hz) disrupt expected intervals.
- Dissonance: Misaligned frequencies (e.g., a sour G# against A) create beating (amplitude fluctuations)—your cochlea and brain register this as jarring, per Toole’s psychoacoustics (e.g., Sound Reproduction, p. 28).
- Physical Pain Mechanism:
- Neural Overlap: Auditory cortex and pain pathways (e.g., anterior cingulate) connect—dissonance can trigger a visceral “ouch” (studies like Koelsch, 2006, link music to discomfort).
- Tension: Off-pitch notes tense muscles (e.g., jaw, neck)—autonomic response to auditory stress, amplifying pain.
- Group Context:
- Perfect/Relative Pitch: You might have traits of absolute pitch (1% of people) or refined relative pitch—common in musicians. Missteps (e.g., 20 cents off) hit harder.
- Sensory Sensitivity: Synesthesia or hyperacusis could amplify this—5-10% experience sensory crossover (e.g., sound as pain).
- Emotional Tie:
- Sadia’s Lens: Music’s harmony aligns with emotional stability—off-notes disrupt your inner balance, turning discomfort physical.
Why Interesting?
- Rare but Real: Only a subset (e.g., trained ears, sensitive nervous systems) feel pitch errors as pain—most hear mild annoyance.
- Biological Edge: Your auditory transfer function might peak sharper at 1-4 kHz—evolutionary gift for detail, now a curse for flaws.
I fall into this category, it truly hurts, as I explained to a beginner flute player (my son) but also true, If I told the AI to make up some realistic sounding BS that is 100% false, it will do that too... Which one is above... You don't know, but as long as you know its AI, you know that it could be either.
The absolute devotion to 'scien(ce)tism' displayed by some folks on that forum would make even the most crafty cult leader jealous.
scientism
noun
sci·en·tism ˈsī-ən-ˌti-zəm1
: methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
2
: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
The scientific method is a process for establishing facts through observation, experimentation, and analysis. It involves making an observation, forming a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and analyzing the results.
Steps of the scientific method
- Ask a question: Start by asking a question about something you observe.
- Research: Learn what is already known about the topic.
- Form a hypothesis: Based on your observations and research, form a possible answer to your question.
- Test the hypothesis: Design an experiment to test your hypothesis.
- Analyze the data: Collect and analyze the data from your experiment.
- Draw conclusions: Interpret the data and draw conclusions.
- Report findings: Publish your results.
Its not all doom and gloom. The issue is when people, including Googles AI who gave the definition of the method, think that "the method" establishes Facts. Im pretty sure that within Imperial Science they don't use the word "Fact" rather, Scientific method establishes theories, which may make it to Law...
"In science, a law is a concise, descriptive statement, often expressed mathematically, that summarizes a consistent pattern or relationship in nature, describing what happens under certain conditions, but not necessarily why"
At the end the line it only makes it to point to where we say "This is the best that we know until something else comes along"
So the real issue is Bad Scientist... and they are plenty. Those same [type of] scientist will tell you that Science says there is no God, when science suggest no such thing, rather some scientist attempt to use science to prove all sorts of things, including the existence and the non existence of all sorts of things.
In the end, the Good Scientist only seeks the truth, and are knowing that the Truth is ever evolving, ever expanding, and ever lasting.... So is 🤫🤫🤫
There is a lot out there that is listenable and enjoyable but not necessarily accurate by the strict definition.
It depends on what your goals are. If you are just discussing preferences fine. If you are asking how to tune a bass reflex cabinet or what a 2 or 3rd order crossover is I would prefer what is scientifically correct. A forum that has both overall I think is more instructive as it exposes you to opinions where you can have a listen and make up your own mind. Flip side when you ask how to do something a lot of the answers will point you in the right direction.
Pick your forum!
Rob 🙂
I primarily had these 2 (Google search results) in mind:
Wikipedia:
Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.
Hoover Institution:
The Dangerous Rise Of Scientism: Blind faith in “settled science” has justified some of the worst horrors of human history.
Substitute science with religion. Seems blind faith in anything can have worrisome consequences.
Rob 🙂
I would like to see hard numbers on that, becuase 16bit means a sinad of 96dB max (in theory, in realiity a bit lower), inherent at the format. To get top rating SINAD 24bit or higher is needed. I've seen many claims like this, but each time they got scientific based tested they fell trough.
And sinad is (again) not the only factor that should be tested, there are a whole bunch that matter and divide the good from the bad.
But what is a fact, is that dac's are not the problem anymore. There are a whole bunch of 100% transparent dac's arround, going from very cheap to very epxensive. So it's a solved problem (on engineering level, that does not mean every dac arround is transparent). Something like the MiniDSP Flex or RME ADI series are full transparent on dac level and are also decent build quality (or better).
In the mid 80s I purchased an Audiocraftsmen equalizer with a spectrum analyzer and a calibrated microphone.
I set up the mike in my listening spot and I equalized my speakers to be flat.
It sounded like SSSSt. Exactly as you described.
I gave the equalizer away.
Two questions:
(1) You probably null-tested the equalizer set to NO-OP -- how did that sound?
(2) You probably compared the FR you actually heard in-ear (through a basic hearing test) with the mic -- how did you control for the differences?
To be scientific (and then to report findings) requires obsessive attention to rigor and detail....
Last edited:
Based on my experience, I believe that the probability of perceiving flat speakers as the "least flawed speakers" is quite high, but I also think that we should seriously reconsider whether the idea that "flat response is the correct response to aim for" is truly grounded in science.
I've mentioned this before, but:
1 Historically, commercially released music has not necessarily been intended for playback on flat-response speakers, nor has it always been mastered in such environments. This is one of the major reasons why, when played back on flatter horn speakers without a BBC dip, many people find instruments like violins to be excessively bright.
2 Human hearing itself is not flat, and the frequency response of the ear is irregular beyond the range that the brain can compensate for. If you sweep a monaural sine wave using headphones, you'll notice that certain frequency ranges shift between the left and right ears. This isn’t a matter of preference but rather a physical, individual variation. Since our ears aren’t naturally flat to begin with, there’s absolutely no need to force yourself to listen to flat-response speakers, especially since most of us DIYers are not doing this as a business.
3 Recorded music, to begin with, exists in an extraordinarily artificial, carefully 'graded' sonic space that has little relation to the frequency balance of real instruments or the everyday sounds you hear. When redeploying this artificial sonic space within a real-world environment, decisions regarding frequency balance and volume levels are not about what constitutes "correct" playback; rather, they are entirely matters of individual perception and cultural context.
I've mentioned this before, but:
1 Historically, commercially released music has not necessarily been intended for playback on flat-response speakers, nor has it always been mastered in such environments. This is one of the major reasons why, when played back on flatter horn speakers without a BBC dip, many people find instruments like violins to be excessively bright.
2 Human hearing itself is not flat, and the frequency response of the ear is irregular beyond the range that the brain can compensate for. If you sweep a monaural sine wave using headphones, you'll notice that certain frequency ranges shift between the left and right ears. This isn’t a matter of preference but rather a physical, individual variation. Since our ears aren’t naturally flat to begin with, there’s absolutely no need to force yourself to listen to flat-response speakers, especially since most of us DIYers are not doing this as a business.
3 Recorded music, to begin with, exists in an extraordinarily artificial, carefully 'graded' sonic space that has little relation to the frequency balance of real instruments or the everyday sounds you hear. When redeploying this artificial sonic space within a real-world environment, decisions regarding frequency balance and volume levels are not about what constitutes "correct" playback; rather, they are entirely matters of individual perception and cultural context.
Same questions
(1') (How) did the equalizer affect hi-fi sound quality even when set to neutral (but not bypassed)?
(2') How were objective response improvements measured and verified to match/conform to the sound/response physically reaching/entering the ear(s)?
I really would like to know how high-fidelity were these equalizers and their operating methodology. @phase_accurate
Last edited:
The feeling of something missing was even there when used flat or only at the edges. It was no option in the HIFI chain.
With the horn based PA it was a giant improvement, as it was used in very different locations.
Never opened it, but must have been a huge graveyard of TL072's.
With the horn based PA it was a giant improvement, as it was used in very different locations.
Never opened it, but must have been a huge graveyard of TL072's.
One more thing to add about the BBC dip: The 2–4 kHz range is not only a region where the ear is sensitive, but in stereo playback, it is also severely affected by phase issues due to the phantom center, making it an extremely fatiguing frequency range. I believe that the developers of BBC monitors deliberately left this range less prominent, and the fact that this frequency characteristic became a fundamental benchmark for commercial stereo speakers for so long is not without reason.
JBL always tests its speakers in mono, but one could speculate that this is to avoid a situation where speakers with a BBC dip receive higher evaluations when compared in stereo. After all, tests designed to "prove" that a flat response is superior inherently carry bias from the outset. Factors such as speaker placement, music selection, measurement microphones, and listening positions are all chosen with a predetermined outcome in mind, and since no company would publish results unfavorable to its own products, this is somewhat understandable—but it's not exactly fair. Conversely, this also means that it would be just as easy to fabricate test results suggesting that non-flat speakers are rated more favorably.
JBL always tests its speakers in mono, but one could speculate that this is to avoid a situation where speakers with a BBC dip receive higher evaluations when compared in stereo. After all, tests designed to "prove" that a flat response is superior inherently carry bias from the outset. Factors such as speaker placement, music selection, measurement microphones, and listening positions are all chosen with a predetermined outcome in mind, and since no company would publish results unfavorable to its own products, this is somewhat understandable—but it's not exactly fair. Conversely, this also means that it would be just as easy to fabricate test results suggesting that non-flat speakers are rated more favorably.
Pretty good. I did this with a pair of ADS L810s driven by a Kenwood KA3500 (40wpc). I still have them - rebuilt.
The original response was quite nice... very smooth, a little peaked on the very bottom and gently downward from ~1Khz on down. Sounded really good to my ears. The spectrum analyzer called for a little bit of cut in the deep bass ! and turning it up a notch (not too much) from 1Khz on up. I think it called from 3db boost in the treble.
The end result was a measured smooth and very flat response but the midrange and treble were too forward. I had it set up as a tape monitor in the integrated amp ) so I didn't like what it sounded like and definitely did not like the flat response.
I moved the microphone about to make sure that wasn't the issue... it wasn't. I guess I prefer the sound to roll off slightly on the top end.
That room was about 20 x 35 and the speakers were (still are) on 12" stands so I decided that I didn't really need/want it.