No, tinnitus.
Tinnitus is not a condition of the ears but of the brain. It is a phantom sound the brain creates itself. It is often triggered by hearing loss from the ears, that's why it is confused as being an ear condition. Peoples brains that are constantly focused on sound around them have a much higher chance of developing these phantom sounds. At least that's what my audiologist explained to me. He showed me some graphics of a group of factory workers with hearing loss and a group of classical musicians with comparable hearing loss and the tinnitus count was almost twice as high in the musicians' group. Their cure for tinnitus is neurolinguistic programming, in other words, learning not to focus too much on everyday noises around you.
Tinnitus is not a condition of the ears but of the brain. It is a phantom sound the brain creates itself. It is often triggered by hearing loss from the ears, that's why it is confused as being an ear condition. Peoples brains that are constantly focused on sound around them have a much higher chance of developing these phantom sounds. At least that's what my audiologist explained to me. He showed me some graphics of a group of factory workers with hearing loss and a group of classical musicians with comparable hearing loss and the tinnitus count was almost twice as high in the musicians' group. Their cure for tinnitus is neurolinguistic programming, in other words, learning not to focus too much on everyday noises around you.
Its fun to make fun of the wine swishers but at some point you're still drinking grape juice. Or kool-aid, for some of you.
I think it's one claim to state the human perception is fallible and an entirely different matter altogether to distinguish the degree of that imperfection. One is obvious and conflating it with extremes is disingenuous.
Pointing out trained ears cannot reliably outline the disparity between antique violins and modern, expertly crafted pieces is not evidence of complete failure. It's a curious parallel to draw if not irrelevant. Is the nuanced exhortations of the relics exaggerated to the point of adaptation as a common use superlative?
Yes. But I bet it sounds better than first act instruments.
There's a lot of snake oil out there, but that doesn't discredit the community as a whole.
I think it's one claim to state the human perception is fallible and an entirely different matter altogether to distinguish the degree of that imperfection. One is obvious and conflating it with extremes is disingenuous.
Pointing out trained ears cannot reliably outline the disparity between antique violins and modern, expertly crafted pieces is not evidence of complete failure. It's a curious parallel to draw if not irrelevant. Is the nuanced exhortations of the relics exaggerated to the point of adaptation as a common use superlative?
Yes. But I bet it sounds better than first act instruments.
There's a lot of snake oil out there, but that doesn't discredit the community as a whole.
(don't have measurements to define the story of these DAC response vs Z-in) but out of old stuff laying around - two different makes of transformer coupled CS4398 DAC sound "dark" somewhat 2D and identical to each other w/o level matching. A DC coupled opamp output PCM1794A DAC, brighter/tighter than those two xformer DAC. My ancient Audio Note AD1865 DAC with 2-OB2 shunt regulated 300vdc supply and each channel one triode out of its single 12FQ7 bottle far exceeds details of the others on a Jimmy Martin Hits compilation CD -his vocals have more detail and "micro" dynamics than with the other two DAC on that Jimmy Martin cut (not all of that CD was as well recorded) -- and those impressions with a cheap "Bluebird" headphone amp with HD562 Superlux cans. Maybe the AK449x if can run passive I/V with simple common cathode tube would be a good setup (?)
Last edited:
There certainly is!
No, it only discredits all the people who claim to hear things which nobody can measure.
For engineering or science purposes, purely subjective claims should automatically be discredited, in the sense that they do not, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, constitute proof. ("I saw a yeti! Clear as day! Four times last year!")
The one use of subjective impressions is that they may serve as motivation to do a set of objective scientific measurements in order to verify or disprove the subjective claim. If those measurements demonstrate and quantify a real phenomenon, great. If not, the phenomenon does not exist, and the subjective impression was nonsense, as 99.99% of them turn out to be. (The camera didn't capture any of those yeti sightings. Ergo, there is no yeti.)
I've found that if I wrap a $100 bill around any DAC, it sounds much better. Wrapping a second C-note around the first one makes it sound even better. The more $100 bills I wrap around the DAC, the better it sounds. I don't need no stinkin' measurements to prove this, I can hear it as plainly as I can hear all those yeti mating calls every spring!"
-Gnobuddy
And the people who claim measurements no one can hear matter
Ah yeti matings calls, what a sweet cacophony...
I haven't read the preceding 200 pages but for decades it has been my opinion that ABX tests are not useful for discriminating between audio components (DAC's, amps, cables, not speakers). Many, many times I've done AB and ABX and made the wrong choice. The only valid test is to listen to A for an extended period (many hours), then listen to B for an equivalent amount of time. If necessary go back to A. IME, you will hear differences and most likely have a favourite.
-subjective tests are...subjective
-measurements do not have feelings
-the ‘best’ of anything is completely subjective no matter the measurements
-the truth of what a measurement means is subjective
-the answer lies in Taoism, your audio system is a musical instrument which we tune (sometimes continuously) to sound the ‘best’ to our own ears, and we can only say what sounds best to our own ears at a point of time, in a given environment. If it rains or your hungry are your ears or brain or feelings the same?
-knowing this does not prevent talking sh!t about what you think is best from being fun
-DACS all sound the same, my Sony esd1000 is the best, the end
-measurements do not have feelings
-the ‘best’ of anything is completely subjective no matter the measurements
-the truth of what a measurement means is subjective
-the answer lies in Taoism, your audio system is a musical instrument which we tune (sometimes continuously) to sound the ‘best’ to our own ears, and we can only say what sounds best to our own ears at a point of time, in a given environment. If it rains or your hungry are your ears or brain or feelings the same?
-knowing this does not prevent talking sh!t about what you think is best from being fun
-DACS all sound the same, my Sony esd1000 is the best, the end
Yes, that is everyone's experience. It is an illusion, created by our untrustworthy senses, and our untrustworthy brain. You will find you have a preference and hear clear differences even if both A & B are behind a wall. And if someone quickly moves the wires behind the wall so that A & B are actually A and A, you will still hear clear differences and prefer one of them...
That is why double-blind testing is required. Not just AB or ABX, but with neither the experimental subject, nor the person collecting the data, aware whether the device in use is A, B, or X. ( What Is a Double-Blind Study? )
None of this is news. This is long-established science, albeit "soft science", which is the best we can do when it comes to psychology. Experimental psychologists have known about these human failings for a very long time now.
When we reject science, we are doomed to repeat the superstitious mistakes of our ancient ancestors. The ones who tried to fix collapsing bridges by sacrificing virgins, or tried to predict the future by reading tea-leaves and goat-entrails.
There's a dead pixel in the computer monitor in the spare bedroom. Now, where did I put the goat, and the sacrificial knife? I'm sure some full-moon sacrificial goat's blood poured on the monitor will fix that darn pixel.
-Gnobuddy
wow 🙄 these are really BIG words, to just discredit a hobby and lots of fun for people who are enjoying their audiogear and music.
You are telling us nothing new and you are repeating yourself endlesly on this topic. Why not just let it go? You are entitled to your opinions. Fine, you have one and we all know....
I was hoping to read some new perspectives in this thread, but it is the same old marie-go-round.
Still enjoying the discussions from a distance though, but had to post this 😀
keep 😎 guys, it is just a hobby and I have lots of joy with it. (and yes, I can clearly hear differences, even if you do not want me to do so - and it feels great - oopss now what 😕 😛 )
You're taking those 'BIG' words far too seriously. The clue is in the second sentence : 'untrustworthy brain'. Words which are the output from a self-confessed untrustworthy brain can only be taken as entertainment.😎
I am quite certain that what we are measuring is sufficient to differentiate sonics between devices.
I am far less than certain that we are able to interpret the measurements in such a clear way.
We end up summarizing them, such as *total* harmonic distortion, because when we look at the actual distortion profile, we do not know for certain how the harmonic spectrum factors into our perception. It's unclear as to what weights we ought to assign the various harmonics to match peoples notions that "A sounds better than B".
If I'm not mistaken, Geddes did some work on this, and found that harmonics that were present at a previously thought unheard levels actually contributed to the subjective ranking of the speakers under test.
Which says that the theory that very low level distortion does not matter is incorrect.
I mean, this is it at it's most basic:
Hypothesis:
If THD is below -X dB, the two devices will sound the same.
Experiment : THD is below -X dB for devices A and B.
Experiment shows devices A and B sound different.
Therefore, the hypothesis is incorrect.
However, we're certainly not done with the harmonic spectrum.
Suppose device A's harmonics are all Even, and device B's harmonics are all Odd. That would suggest a new hypothesis, would it not?
I am far less than certain that we are able to interpret the measurements in such a clear way.
We end up summarizing them, such as *total* harmonic distortion, because when we look at the actual distortion profile, we do not know for certain how the harmonic spectrum factors into our perception. It's unclear as to what weights we ought to assign the various harmonics to match peoples notions that "A sounds better than B".
If I'm not mistaken, Geddes did some work on this, and found that harmonics that were present at a previously thought unheard levels actually contributed to the subjective ranking of the speakers under test.
Which says that the theory that very low level distortion does not matter is incorrect.
I mean, this is it at it's most basic:
Hypothesis:
If THD is below -X dB, the two devices will sound the same.
Experiment : THD is below -X dB for devices A and B.
Experiment shows devices A and B sound different.
Therefore, the hypothesis is incorrect.
However, we're certainly not done with the harmonic spectrum.
Suppose device A's harmonics are all Even, and device B's harmonics are all Odd. That would suggest a new hypothesis, would it not?
Only if the cat is alive is it both dead and alive.....as it’s future is certain.
A dead cat is just dead. 😀
And whether or not it’s in a box makes no difference!
A dead cat is just dead. 😀
And whether or not it’s in a box makes no difference!
I am absolutely certain the only time my audio experience has benefited from measurements is speaker/crossover design and tuning....see it’s the certainty that’s subjective
Well, calibrating my tape deck won’t work without some serious t and m equipment