It's not obvious to me. They're sonic phenomena with thresholds, just like any other sensory phenomenon. Enlightenment is requested. 😀
In some test formats, they can. In ABX (in particular) the relative volume between the DUTs is fixed, but the listener can raise or lower volume at will. There are other test formats that would allow a listener to adjust relative levels, too.
No, its fine thank you
Well, maybe there is another way
I once saw how molecyles in water changes with different kinds of music
What if our body fluids are affected by sound too
Maybe it could be possible to measure different body reactions with different amps as well 😀 woodoo ?
Well, maybe there is another way
I once saw how molecyles in water changes with different kinds of music
What if our body fluids are affected by sound too
Maybe it could be possible to measure different body reactions with different amps as well 😀 woodoo ?
Oh, this one I've got to hear about. Hang on, I have to get some popcorn, be right back.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK, let me sit down and get comfy. This is gonna be good.
Tell me about how water molecules change with different types of music.
I dont know that much
But they showed how the water formed crystaline structures like snow crystals...and they showed changes with different kinds of music...something I saw at TV
Thats all I can say
oh yes, enjoy your popcorn 🙂 I will enjoy my musical water 😀
Another thing...similar 😀
Its no secret that life on earth started in the sea
Many fish have a "sense-line" on the side of their body, which is exstremely sensitive
Maybe we still have something similar left in our nerve system
Its a known fact that we only use a fraction of our capacity
But they showed how the water formed crystaline structures like snow crystals...and they showed changes with different kinds of music...something I saw at TV
Thats all I can say
oh yes, enjoy your popcorn 🙂 I will enjoy my musical water 😀 Another thing...similar 😀
Its no secret that life on earth started in the sea
Many fish have a "sense-line" on the side of their body, which is exstremely sensitive
Maybe we still have something similar left in our nerve system
Its a known fact that we only use a fraction of our capacity
tinitus said:
And also evolved long after what was to become mammals had split away from the common ancestor. 😉
Oh that´s in some way OT. 🙂
Sy, tinitus is talking about the famous water experiments of Dr. Masaru Emoto.
Really fascinating as he found, that water does alter the structure if treated with various kinds of music and even thoughts.
He became even more famous as his work was presented in the movie ´what the bleep do we know´ a couple of years ago.
AFAIK his experiments couldn´t reproduce up to now by any other scientist. 🙂
I think the most reasonable explanation would be, that individuals are different, some may have no difficulties with a certain protocol like ABX at all, others will need extended training time to adapt to it, and others will feel uncomfortable with it in every way.
I know that i did not like ABX for myself from the beginning, and as there´s no need to use it, choosed other ones. But i guess i would be able to adapt to it.
But as i am not aware of any scientific study about this subject this is speculation only partly backed up by personal experience with listeners.
Anyway to avoid the speculation about anything around a speciific test protocol afterwards, it is important to include controls in the test routine. If the controls show unusual results than you have to think again what was happening.
At this state it seems that some people were able (some in ABX some in other protocols) to detect differences between HD-DSD and HD-PCM, some were able to detect differences if material with extended frequency range beyond 20kHz was presented (see Theile, Link) other were not able (see Meyer, Moran);
some were able to detect differences between various upsamplers (see Putzeys) and buffer amplifiers (see Frindle).
Otoh a lot of trials have shown that differences, that should have been detected, were not in even big double blind tests. (see for example Harleys article about the AES-Convention, where Locanthi reported it; and the stereophile blind test, where the differences between a tube ampliifier and a solid state amp were not discriminated).
Jakob
Sy, tinitus is talking about the famous water experiments of Dr. Masaru Emoto.
Really fascinating as he found, that water does alter the structure if treated with various kinds of music and even thoughts.
He became even more famous as his work was presented in the movie ´what the bleep do we know´ a couple of years ago.
AFAIK his experiments couldn´t reproduce up to now by any other scientist. 🙂
I think the most reasonable explanation would be, that individuals are different, some may have no difficulties with a certain protocol like ABX at all, others will need extended training time to adapt to it, and others will feel uncomfortable with it in every way.
I know that i did not like ABX for myself from the beginning, and as there´s no need to use it, choosed other ones. But i guess i would be able to adapt to it.
But as i am not aware of any scientific study about this subject this is speculation only partly backed up by personal experience with listeners.
Anyway to avoid the speculation about anything around a speciific test protocol afterwards, it is important to include controls in the test routine. If the controls show unusual results than you have to think again what was happening.
At this state it seems that some people were able (some in ABX some in other protocols) to detect differences between HD-DSD and HD-PCM, some were able to detect differences if material with extended frequency range beyond 20kHz was presented (see Theile, Link) other were not able (see Meyer, Moran);
some were able to detect differences between various upsamplers (see Putzeys) and buffer amplifiers (see Frindle).
Otoh a lot of trials have shown that differences, that should have been detected, were not in even big double blind tests. (see for example Harleys article about the AES-Convention, where Locanthi reported it; and the stereophile blind test, where the differences between a tube ampliifier and a solid state amp were not discriminated).
Jakob
Bratislav said:
My brain does not play when evaluating audio gear. I am not influenced by brands or looks and do not care what other people think that I should be able to hear or not to hear. I have always done what I want to do and walked my own paths in life. I seriously think that wether you have that attitude or not, iow. if you have confidence and good self esteeme or not, affect very much how thing turn out in listening tests... and in other areas in life as well. Many people are followers that think and do what the others or the authority "tells them".
You must realise that people are different. I think your black and white way of looking at the world doesn't serve you well.
Also you can not compare senses just like that. Sight are sight and hearing is hearing. I am fully aware of optical illusions of the kind you linked to and also know that there are some connections ie. interactions between the senses.
Painting with a broad brush like that = no good.
Musicians are humans, are different. I know a lot of musicians and your description does not fit in my world. Many are VERY picky. I am *caugh caugh* a "musician" myself and it was when I got into recording stuff fifteen years ago that I started to care about hifi for real.
When I record instruments and voices I have this starting point that I want the recorded material to sound like in does in real life, or close at least. I noticed how extremly colored the sound was with the gear we started out with. It sounded nothing like real instruments and nothing like the good recordings (which of course often are strongly manipulated). So this made me aware of the shortcomings of the majority of all links in the audio recording > playback chain and I started to improve my listening rig as well.
No, you got that completely wrong.
/Peter
spzzzzkt said:
Could it be that left brain/right brain theory is based on incorrect assumptions about how the sensory mechanisms of the brain operate? 😉
It's a nice story, and one that fits in well with the way we imagine our world to be, but despite being quoted in lots of pop science, management training, art tutorial books etc. etc. is still far from proven, and a gross simplification of the experimental evidence.
As pan pointed out before; all kinds of interactions/clues do have an impact and _can_ lead to wrong decisions of just illusions.
Leaving the more philosophical aspects regarding our perception of reality aside, at least there is a practical aspect inhere.
How many of our daily decisions are based on (sort of) scientific testing?
Clearly, that somebody else was able to detect a difference in a dbt, does not mean that i am not fooling myself about it.
And surely it is an illusion itself to think can prevent you from making false decision in audio.
It is hard work to set up a proper blind test and to get useful results.
And the question might be, if this effort invested in some listening training would lead to greater benefit overall.
@ Scott_Wurcer,
last time i counted, 12 different topics were covered in this thread. 🙂
I think the main underlying question is exactly the same as roughly 30 years ago. Is there a difference between two pieces of audio gear detectable, if every single measurement shows a difference that is well below the known thresholds of hearing?
In those days it was the Hafler/Baxandall nulling experiment; nowadays its the more modern realisation (like in bwaslos liberty suite) that leads to interesting results.
It´s quite difficult to find two amplifiers working with a real world load, that will _not_ show a difference in these `nulling experiments´ .
Listening to the resulting sound difference leads to the impression (and hypothesis) that this difference sound
is indeed the detectable difference as low in level it is.
Given the inconsistent state of the various studies/experiments (which are clearly not all that rigouros in the scintific methodoloy used) it´s hard to believe that a difference between two amplifiers should be undetectable in comparison to differences that were reported as detectable.
Jakob2
Leaving the more philosophical aspects regarding our perception of reality aside, at least there is a practical aspect inhere.
How many of our daily decisions are based on (sort of) scientific testing?
Clearly, that somebody else was able to detect a difference in a dbt, does not mean that i am not fooling myself about it.
And surely it is an illusion itself to think can prevent you from making false decision in audio.
It is hard work to set up a proper blind test and to get useful results.
And the question might be, if this effort invested in some listening training would lead to greater benefit overall.
@ Scott_Wurcer,
last time i counted, 12 different topics were covered in this thread. 🙂
I think the main underlying question is exactly the same as roughly 30 years ago. Is there a difference between two pieces of audio gear detectable, if every single measurement shows a difference that is well below the known thresholds of hearing?
In those days it was the Hafler/Baxandall nulling experiment; nowadays its the more modern realisation (like in bwaslos liberty suite) that leads to interesting results.
It´s quite difficult to find two amplifiers working with a real world load, that will _not_ show a difference in these `nulling experiments´ .
Listening to the resulting sound difference leads to the impression (and hypothesis) that this difference sound
is indeed the detectable difference as low in level it is.
Given the inconsistent state of the various studies/experiments (which are clearly not all that rigouros in the scintific methodoloy used) it´s hard to believe that a difference between two amplifiers should be undetectable in comparison to differences that were reported as detectable.
Jakob2
Maybe ABX reverts the audiophile brain to the casual indifferent to anything audio one? For instance, if someone completely uninterested bumps to a listening session that I do with fellow DIYers, always says, wow! I wonder what you listen for, I CAN'T. Not 'I am not interested', but 'I can not'. Some of those that got involved at a point, turned out that they very enthusiastically could discriminate sonics.
Ok for levels and EQ and phase effects that the basic auditory system's part can sort out bcs of evolutionary survival necessity, thats all common. Maybe ABX resets audio culture? Like when you strip best presented women of above standard looks, they tend to look all closely adequate. Its the purpose that defines the answer.
Ok for levels and EQ and phase effects that the basic auditory system's part can sort out bcs of evolutionary survival necessity, thats all common. Maybe ABX resets audio culture? Like when you strip best presented women of above standard looks, they tend to look all closely adequate. Its the purpose that defines the answer.
Pan said:
Peter if your desire is to make it sound real, I would love to hear your recordings. To me that is the only measure that really count.
While you are in the priveledged position to know what the music sounded like in real life, how close do you think one can get reproducing it?
Do you mind to tell what equipment you use?
André
tinitus said:
Sounds familiar, but i don't think i'm at liberty to discuss it in detail.
Peter-P,
i second André's question, though just for curiosity reasons.
(you can see what i'm using in the "DIY solid state preamp" thread, also recall posting some reference to it in Sander's thread. The earlier version was used at show demos of the Nautilus, current one is in the very low ppm range. Do not have an easy answer to your Q.)
salas said:
The point that I have been trying to make all those many bposts, and apparently have been miserably failing at, is the following.
The one with the $$$ golden fascia will be the one that performs best, if that is the one you select. You CANNOT tell yourself, OK this one really looks great, it has all the right colors. It looks impressive, BUT the other, bland one, actually sounds better so I take that one. That other will NOT sound better no matter what the 'objective' sound difference between the two amplifiers is. And that's why we need controlled blind tests if we want to do a selection based on sound alone.
Jan Didden
Pan said:
Peter,
If that is true (which I don't believe because you have no way of knowing what you say is or isn't so), you would be the only one on the planet. The other 6.499.999.999 people here are different.
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Jan, that may be true in general but I've listened to a lot of amps with all the gold and lights and glow and "reputation" and found them a joke. Perhaps I am crazy after all 😀
André
- Status
- Not open for further replies.