janneman said:
All true. I was talking about what objectivists think when they are being unrealistic, if that is posible. The thing is can you say that a person "hears" something that is not caused by moving air molecules, or should we use another word for this?
Andre Visser said:
Too bad you have absolutely no clue what "good" and "bad" are in technical scientific terms, that would then be applicable to anyone's system in the really real world outside your head. You just repeat these psychogenic subjective descriptions ad nauseam.
cheers,
AJ
tnargs said:
He's got some great ones 😉.
Weekend at Bernies is among my favorites.😀
fredex said:
I mentioned it in my previous post (assuming it escapes censorship):
Psychogenic
cheers,
AJ
AJ,
just for interest sake, could you please provide frequency measurements of your speakers at listening distance, please.
you too, R, if you have them.
Thanks,
AG
just for interest sake, could you please provide frequency measurements of your speakers at listening distance, please.
you too, R, if you have them.
Thanks,
AG
Hello Again Fredex! You made the statement: "...what is wrong with this objectivist trusting his ears? I hear no difference. " There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with an Objectivist trusting their ears! In fact that's exactly what they should do. You say you hear no difference and I believe you're telling the truth.
When I talk with fellow audiophiles/music lovers I always state that a person who doesn't hear differences in cables/wires would be crazy to purchase expensive ICs, speaker wire or power cords! Afterall why purchase something that doesn't improve your audio system's sound?
Personally in my home on my system ---{not because my home or system is special but, only because I'm intimately familiar with it's sound}--- I can tell when my ICs have been changed whether the test is sighted or blind. Others here can choose to believe that or not. However if anyone here is visiting Orlando, FL. anytime, please send me an email if you have the time and I'd be happy to prove that statement is true.
When I talk with fellow audiophiles/music lovers I always state that a person who doesn't hear differences in cables/wires would be crazy to purchase expensive ICs, speaker wire or power cords! Afterall why purchase something that doesn't improve your audio system's sound?
Personally in my home on my system ---{not because my home or system is special but, only because I'm intimately familiar with it's sound}--- I can tell when my ICs have been changed whether the test is sighted or blind. Others here can choose to believe that or not. However if anyone here is visiting Orlando, FL. anytime, please send me an email if you have the time and I'd be happy to prove that statement is true.
AJinFLA said:
Thankfully here on diyaudio.com the moderators actually watch how the members address each other. Over on Audio Asylum AJinFLA berates & disparages virtually everything I say stating in a much nastier way than simple implying by placing a word like "Psychogenic" that my reasons for believing I hear differences in audio components and wires is because I'm in need of psychiatric counseling. He's even stated he deliberately attempts to provoke me to see how I'll respond.
I think it's a shame that people like AJinFLA cannot read another person's differing audio POV without calling the poster's mental health into question or impling their account of events that transpired are "made-up" simply because he disagrees with their opinion and/or POV !
Brett said:
What the brain detects, of course...😉
left-right timing differences of around 2 uSec. Left-right amplitude differences of about .2 to .5 db.
tc-60guy said:
It certainly is, but under specific conditions that may not apply to what we hear. Measurement of the transient response of a specific entity buried within a complex set of uncorrelated signals, that is a much more difficult problem.
Cheers, John
thetubeguy1954 said:
Don't let it bother you, some people live to learn and some only to annoy those who try.
@ tnargs,
i´d think it´s fair to conclude that there aren´t scientific experiments showing that cables don´t produce audible differences (ment within the context of our discussion)
I know it´s sometimes difficult but let´s try to separate working hypothesis and personal belief from hard evidence.
That is true; it´s simply part of scientific methodology.
BTW, in the linked website are within the comments of Floyd Toole citations to his articles missing. I´ve to reread them, in my memory he didn´t have done papers explicitely related to phase audibility.
So in the end it is a bit confusing as it seems that evicence from the Lipshitz paper is debated through just anecdotal comments.
If of interest i can post some other references on this subject. Even Helmholtz himself didn´t rely on absolute phase deafness; in ?50´s M.R.Schroeder did some work on it which led to a paper in ?1984 about speech synthesizing based on phase anomalities. There some more recent AES-papers with interesting results.
Paul Frindle did a paper about
`Are we measuring the right things? Artefact audibility versus measurements´
(The measure of audio - AES uk conference)
In which he commented several aspects and relied on the use of a listening room (instead of headphones) and the ABX-setup. He described the following effects (among others) as reliable detectable under the test conditions described:
-) Absolute and stereo differential gain anomalies of less than 0.1dB
-) Differential stereo delays of 1µs
-) Harmonic distortion components at 80dB below signal level, even wehn they are more than 10dB below noise floor
i´d think it´s fair to conclude that there aren´t scientific experiments showing that cables don´t produce audible differences (ment within the context of our discussion)
I know it´s sometimes difficult but let´s try to separate working hypothesis and personal belief from hard evidence.
That is true; it´s simply part of scientific methodology.
BTW, in the linked website are within the comments of Floyd Toole citations to his articles missing. I´ve to reread them, in my memory he didn´t have done papers explicitely related to phase audibility.
So in the end it is a bit confusing as it seems that evicence from the Lipshitz paper is debated through just anecdotal comments.
If of interest i can post some other references on this subject. Even Helmholtz himself didn´t rely on absolute phase deafness; in ?50´s M.R.Schroeder did some work on it which led to a paper in ?1984 about speech synthesizing based on phase anomalities. There some more recent AES-papers with interesting results.
Paul Frindle did a paper about
`Are we measuring the right things? Artefact audibility versus measurements´
(The measure of audio - AES uk conference)
In which he commented several aspects and relied on the use of a listening room (instead of headphones) and the ABX-setup. He described the following effects (among others) as reliable detectable under the test conditions described:
-) Absolute and stereo differential gain anomalies of less than 0.1dB
-) Differential stereo delays of 1µs
-) Harmonic distortion components at 80dB below signal level, even wehn they are more than 10dB below noise floor
Jakob2 said:
Hmmm.. I wonder about the absolute .1dB. I've seen no data in support of that..it'd be nice to find that paper.
1 uSec.. interesting...last I saw, 1.2 uSec was the lowest. And that was using dithering.
On the assumption that those numbers hold true, one is left with a huge problem...how to measure..
Cheers, John
Witih the constraints of usually non optimal listening rooms, the whole discussion about the values and parameters mentioned seems rather ridiculous.
I was - as many others here - upon closer testing myself - never able to distinguish between any two cables.
I havent tried the test with headphones - how to test a ls cable using headphones anyway? but using speakers - also usually, however well designed, they have non flat frequency responses all of them - a null result for me.
I was - as many others here - upon closer testing myself - never able to distinguish between any two cables.
I havent tried the test with headphones - how to test a ls cable using headphones anyway? but using speakers - also usually, however well designed, they have non flat frequency responses all of them - a null result for me.
audio-kraut said:
Absolutely NOT.
Within the constraints of any listening room or environment, a discussion of WHAT needs to be measured is the very first thing....not the last.
If one has no idea what to measure.. nor what level of measurement resolution is required, there can be no discussion of measurement results.
Anyone who states "it cannot be measured", or, "it has never been measured".... but yet has no understanding of what is to be measured...is not not discussing the topic at hand..
Cheers, John
thetubeguy1954 said:
This begs a question: what ears qualify as being Objectivist's? 8-bit resolution?
Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
I have postulated in the past that the human ear/brain is more sensitive to differences in sound than a microphone. Thus it's able to hear & detect differences that audio tests and the measurements they provide don't and won't reveal! This could be one of the main reasons why audio components & wires "appear" to measure the same or close enough to the same to be considered insignificant. If this is all true it would explain and give some credence to why subjectivists state they're hearing differences, while objectivists are stating it's impossible because the wires measure the same!
I just came across an article by a man named Arthur C Ludwig Sr, who used to design Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) systems for the U. S. military ---{the primary function of an ECM system is to detect an enemy before they detect you, for self-defense}--- I would think it's obvious that the microphones used in ECM systems would need to be extremely senstive, no?
A little info about this man. He's a 68-year-old music lover with a BS from Caltech, masters degrees in Mathematics and EE from USC, and a Ph.D. in engineering from USC. He was named a Fellow of the IEEE in 1992 (no longer a member). Now retired, he had a 35-year career working at the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab (during the Apollo era), as a visiting professor at the Technical University of Denmark, and with a great group of engineers at Toyon, a small research firm in Santa Barbara. His specialties are electromagnetics, signal processing, and systems engineering. Which, according to him, is a near-ideal background for sound system design as the mathematics of sound and electromagnetic waves is very similar.
This man believed it would be interesting to compare the characteristics of a good ECM system and human hearing and so he did so! What he found was the ratio of highest to lowest frequency ---{where the bigger the better}--- with the ECM system the ratio was 20:1 but, with the human ear/brain the ratio was 1000:1. Next when comparing the ratio of strongest signal to weakest ---{once again the bigger the better}-- for the ECM the ratio was million : one whereas the ratio for the human ear/brain was 32 trillion : one! They discovered that human hearing is a superior system in every respect except source location accuracy. He came to the conclusion that the ear evolved primarily for self-defense or perhaps hunting. Language and enjoyment of music are delightful evolutionary by-products.
Let me be perfectly clear that I'm not stating this is proof postive confirming my beliefs that the human ear/brain is indeed more senstive ---{ and quite a bit so }--- than microphones are but, it should at the very least, give us reason to pause and think that there may actually be sounds heard by the human ear/brain that microphones and test equipment miss. Any comments?
You can read his complete paper at the link below: http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/EARS.htm#Distortion
I have postulated in the past that the human ear/brain is more sensitive to differences in sound than a microphone. Thus it's able to hear & detect differences that audio tests and the measurements they provide don't and won't reveal! This could be one of the main reasons why audio components & wires "appear" to measure the same or close enough to the same to be considered insignificant. If this is all true it would explain and give some credence to why subjectivists state they're hearing differences, while objectivists are stating it's impossible because the wires measure the same!
I just came across an article by a man named Arthur C Ludwig Sr, who used to design Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) systems for the U. S. military ---{the primary function of an ECM system is to detect an enemy before they detect you, for self-defense}--- I would think it's obvious that the microphones used in ECM systems would need to be extremely senstive, no?
A little info about this man. He's a 68-year-old music lover with a BS from Caltech, masters degrees in Mathematics and EE from USC, and a Ph.D. in engineering from USC. He was named a Fellow of the IEEE in 1992 (no longer a member). Now retired, he had a 35-year career working at the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab (during the Apollo era), as a visiting professor at the Technical University of Denmark, and with a great group of engineers at Toyon, a small research firm in Santa Barbara. His specialties are electromagnetics, signal processing, and systems engineering. Which, according to him, is a near-ideal background for sound system design as the mathematics of sound and electromagnetic waves is very similar.
This man believed it would be interesting to compare the characteristics of a good ECM system and human hearing and so he did so! What he found was the ratio of highest to lowest frequency ---{where the bigger the better}--- with the ECM system the ratio was 20:1 but, with the human ear/brain the ratio was 1000:1. Next when comparing the ratio of strongest signal to weakest ---{once again the bigger the better}-- for the ECM the ratio was million : one whereas the ratio for the human ear/brain was 32 trillion : one! They discovered that human hearing is a superior system in every respect except source location accuracy. He came to the conclusion that the ear evolved primarily for self-defense or perhaps hunting. Language and enjoyment of music are delightful evolutionary by-products.
Let me be perfectly clear that I'm not stating this is proof postive confirming my beliefs that the human ear/brain is indeed more senstive ---{ and quite a bit so }--- than microphones are but, it should at the very least, give us reason to pause and think that there may actually be sounds heard by the human ear/brain that microphones and test equipment miss. Any comments?
You can read his complete paper at the link below: http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/EARS.htm#Distortion
Andre Visser said:
Ah, you always check cable directivity but not always....
Did you ever consider the possibility that braindeadness may also occur in the process of hearing and explaining "audible" differences? 😉
Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
What kind of sounds would that be? Could you provide some examples?
thetubeguy1954 said:
What kind of sounds would that be? Could you provide some examples?
Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
And further:
ALL the sounds you hear from from your speakers originate from a microphone!
Unless they are added by whatever and are distortions!
ravon said:
And further:
ALL the sounds you hear from from your speakers originate from a microphone!
Unless they are added by whatever and are distortions!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.