Honestly, it's difficult to comment when you refuse to share those results. But if they involve our agreeing to define a difference as "obviously audible" without a long-term unsighted demonstration of same then that would (obviously, I think) beg the question.
By "perceptual research" I hoped that you meant peer-reviewed research about the nature of audio perception (to support your objective claim about the nature of audio perception). Perhaps a JAES paper or other academic article showing this long term audibility effect.
I think if you claim to be backed by "perceptual research" you are giving the impression of having a rather grander foundation than some ABX tests you did. But again, since you refuse to describe them, who did them, or with what hypothesis, I may be being unfair.
Last edited:
Regarding peer-reviewed auditory research, there is only a limited amount. Not that there wouldn't probably be some benefit from more such study, it's that nobody cares enough to want to fund it. Actually, it seems like some of the people who care the most about what a small portion of the population may or may not be able to hear are those who like to argue about it on internet forums. One might think, given the intensity of some of the arguing, that people would be interested enough to put up some money to find out more answers, but that would be incorrect. So far that's the case anyway.
One area where there has been some limited ongoing auditory perceptual research has been by musicologists. Some of them are studying questions such as why the conventional rules of voice leading in music theory are what they are. Turns out a pretty good case can be made a lot of the rules have to do with avoiding or minimizing the effects of auditory masking. They have also shown that the perception of tones is a mental experience constructed by the brain, not direct perception of reality.
One area where there has been some limited ongoing auditory perceptual research has been by musicologists. Some of them are studying questions such as why the conventional rules of voice leading in music theory are what they are. Turns out a pretty good case can be made a lot of the rules have to do with avoiding or minimizing the effects of auditory masking. They have also shown that the perception of tones is a mental experience constructed by the brain, not direct perception of reality.
Last edited:
I already asked if this evidence would be acceptable & you categorically replied no so what incentive do I have to waste my energy with this request which now asks for the evidence?
Ok so ABX blind test results do not meet your standard for objective investigation. Can you say why?
Your impressions are not my responsibility but you flatly rejected what I said I would provide & now seem to be desirous of it. What has changed since your earlier rejection & now, your repeated requests?
Last edited:
Why don't you just show them? Is it really that hard, or that much trouble? You know you want to, why else would you not let it drop? Do you want us to beg? Pleeeeeaze show me what you've got, I'm dying to see it, honestly I am
When communicating the impression you give others is at least partly your responsibility. When you say your position can be "verified" via "research", that implies a level of rigor and credibility.
If you have evidence comprising short-term tests showing an inability to differentiate coupled with long-term tests that do show an ability to differentiate under the same conditions that would be interesting. That wasn't what you originally offered.
That said, you seem very enthusiastic about debating what convincing evidence might look like and not at all interested in providing any. The "waste of time" argument you apply to the latter seems at best curious given the former.
I'll let others draw conclusions about why that might be.
If you have evidence comprising short-term tests showing an inability to differentiate coupled with long-term tests that do show an ability to differentiate under the same conditions that would be interesting. That wasn't what you originally offered.
That said, you seem very enthusiastic about debating what convincing evidence might look like and not at all interested in providing any. The "waste of time" argument you apply to the latter seems at best curious given the former.
I'll let others draw conclusions about why that might be.
The room used has many problems if I look at the images the OP posted, objects at one side of speakers but not at other, speakers littered all over, hardly ideal for a bake off!
£129 or thereabouts, I have used a pi it was crap, I used a £6 dac off ebay as well that was crap. Heard plenty of DAC's from £6 up to around £9000
Providing those links would be very useful.
That's all well and good but even a 30$ DAC is certainly accurate enough nowadays to convey all these emotional or auditory clues. The question is rather whether our perception apparatus is sensible enough to pick clues from devices that only differ in distortion and noise by a small fraction of a %.
Considering the studies I've read on audibility thresholds for distortion I kinda doubt it. But I wouldn't mind being corrected.
Search for "summary statistics in auditory perception" to find the papers
Nobody denies that as I said these subtle cues could be picked up over a telephone connection. What I gave were examples of where statistical profiling may well be the underlying mechanism
Two pretty general terms "distortion" "noise" - care to give more specifics?
Do you think these are the only differences that matter with regard to audibility?
Studies that are available were not trying to find out what a few oddball people could do. They used fairly small numbers of subjects, and any results suggesting exceptional performance were probably discarded as outliers. The aim wasn't to find the very best listeners, but rather to figure out what would probably be good enough for most people (95% of people).
In addition to that, test equipment available at the time of some of the research was not nearly as good as we have now. A possibility could have been that some masking occurred from test equipment.
It would be great to do some newer and more extensive research in this area, the main problem is finding someone willing to pay for it. Apparently, nobody is interested in doing that.
I asked you a question about the specifics of your claim.
Your posing a question does not answer this
I have been reading this thread since the very first posting. The OP said that none of the listeners in his small panel were able to hear any difference.
He did not extrapolate to "all users would be unable to hear any difference". That was done by others. Personally, I am happy with the original posting, and am personally willing to make a compromise between what is clearly a very small difference versus a huge difference in cost. I have other things to invest money into.
He did not extrapolate to "all users would be unable to hear any difference". That was done by others. Personally, I am happy with the original posting, and am personally willing to make a compromise between what is clearly a very small difference versus a huge difference in cost. I have other things to invest money into.
There is no need for more specifics. Nor is there a claim on my side actually.
There is simply a question: are the studies about statistical profiling in audition actually relevant in this context ? Do we have any evidence that our ability to establish patterns has actually anything to feed on when we compare DACs ?
The papers I've found are fascinating but they deal with the kind of sounds that a telephone could transmit.
There is simply a question: are the studies about statistical profiling in audition actually relevant in this context ? Do we have any evidence that our ability to establish patterns has actually anything to feed on when we compare DACs ?
The papers I've found are fascinating but they deal with the kind of sounds that a telephone could transmit.
When you say distortion do you mean any change from the input, or subset represented by the artificially generated measured distortions that are usually talked about?
dave
by far the funniest thing i ve read, has man kind ever created some dac or other components thats near perfect?
please name a few and make sure you read the datasheets
No study can take fully into account all the possible changes and there's always an element of artificiality. Markw4 correctly pointed out the limits of what's available on the topic.
But if you have anything better to provide, please do.