Otoh one could state that quite often self-converted "ex golden ears" tend to be the most dogmatic in believing in conspiracy theories and seem to be unable to assume being in error about that. It seems to be more easy to believe in being a victim of a world wide network of dishonest manufacturers, reviewers and selfdeluding listeners, than to believe that one has just fooled himself.
(SY) belongs to this group and is imo quite blind to his own bias.
Money might be a strong driving force to favour certain opinions but ego surely can be a equally strong driving force as well.
I am not sure which conclusions you are talking about here. Looking back over the last 10 years there are some commonalities, which all appear to related to people
1. Claiming they can hear things that do not seem possible
2. Failing to demonstrate this on the files posted for fun
3. Making reams of excuses after the reveal.
It is very rare that a golden ear says 'my my that's interesting, maybe I have been deluding myself all these years'.
I don't think any conclusions about human hearing can be made, but sure someone versed in the art can come up with conclusions on human nature and the role of the ego in online fora.
As Mark4 before, i don´t want to repeat anything that was already written in numerous threads about the pitfalls of controlled listening tests.
I´m sure we can agree that you´ve mentioned nothing of this basic informations/conclusions in your post, so one side is missing for a objective description of the process or current situation.
I never said these were controlled tests. In fact I have been pretty consistent that these are fun. I also have not claimed to be doing an objective analysis, just making observations. No claims. You are perhaps reading something into my words due to the inevitable language deltas.
As for SY he has proved that he can correctly tell Mp3 files of different bit rates in a test (which may have been posted here) so I would say he is more aware of his hearing acuity than I am and certainly seems to have shown the required sensitivity to carry out these tests.
As for SY he has proved that he can correctly tell Mp3 files of different bit rates in a test (which may have been posted here) so I would say he is more aware of his hearing acuity than I am and certainly seems to have shown the required sensitivity to carry out these tests.
Of course i might be misinterpreting what you´ve wrote, but what could
"2. Failing to demonstrate this on the files posted for fun"
mean if not anything like demonstrating by results from a controlled test?
Maybe i´m missing something, but is there another (usually accepted) way to demonstrate "this" ?
If "these are fun" for everybody could be questionable but even if we accept the premise does that ensure the nonimpact of the known mechanisms in listening tests?
So, isn´t
"3. Making reams of excuses after the reveal."
assuming that there were no real effects of distraction?
I mean, if you know about the numerous reasons that could have an impact in controlled listening tests, is it correct to describe pointing to these effects with "making reams of excuses" ?
I wasn´t assuming any claims, just wanted to point to the missing parts in the description.
Could be, but is that of relevance wrt to my post?
Does the "required sensitivity" really inevitibly exclude being biased?
Usually you don´t tell listeners about the EUT to exlude such bias effects.
Otherwise you´d have to assume that "non golden ears" are in a miraculous way immune to such bias effects.
Would be more helpful if provide answers to my questions, but anyway.....
I´d still say there is quite difference in providing an "AES review" but if we are just talking about observations- one of my observations over the years is that if a positive "test results" occurs the fun part ends immediately, as all of a sudden it was not controlled sufficiently; not published, not peer reviewed, not double blind or as you would call it "a ream of excuses" was made why that results would not mean anything.
But i´m not sure if these observations really help in our discussions....
You have to remember that Jakob2 will put the most literal interpretation on your words which the rules of English allow. It is like trying to have an informal conversation in a pub with Mr. Spock. He will also cling to the letter of statistics, rather than the spirit, so no amount of indistinguishability test results will cause him to conclude 'probably indistinguishable'. I suspect this is just the way he thinks; I have seen no evidence to suggest he 'has a dog in this fight'.
Perhaps a reconciliatory point between what Jakob is saying and what Bill is talking about is the idea of effect size. Namely, if someone claims something is super obvious, but then cannot observe it under even these very basic samples, either the effect in question is infrequent or the size of it is much smaller than originally stated. If only that affected human behavior!
Small effects, whether auditory spuriae, gravity waves, or traces of a cancer signature in the early disease (my world) are going to be hard to find and will show up null in most experiments even if they're a true positive. Worth remembering.
Small effects, whether auditory spuriae, gravity waves, or traces of a cancer signature in the early disease (my world) are going to be hard to find and will show up null in most experiments even if they're a true positive. Worth remembering.
yes, maybe.
My test is just fine for myself.
BTW -- with just 2 signal generators, you can apply various freq and levels to a fundamental and see if you can detect a just noticeable difference.
How hard is that?
-RNM
Last edited:
Not for me. It's how I make money to feed my cats and poodle, amongst other things.
So your pretend super hearing makes you money. That helps explain a lot of your posts.
Dadaists
The scramble to divert the discussion toward effects in music production is funny, maybe I should put a fuzz pedal input on my new line stage.
Many here still listen to LP's that start in the percents of THD. I can't imagine .01% levels doing anything in addition.
H2 Distortion of order of 0.1% is detectable on pure sine of appropriate level (below ear intrinsic distortion) and frequency. 0.01% is never audible, regardless the signal.
The problem is that the audible signal change is sometimes by mistake attributed to nonlinear distortion, though the real reason may be quite different.
The problem is that the audible signal change is sometimes by mistake attributed to nonlinear distortion, though the real reason may be quite different.
This is the frequency response in the audio band. It is extended to hundreds of kHz, with a -3dB roll off from flat above 300kHz. Rise time is below 1us. I am pretty sure there is no midrange suck out. It seems to me rather like a self-suggestion.
Attachments
Dadaists
I was thinking of someone more like John Siau over at Benchmark Media. He measures and listens too. Probably have other people in to listen as well at times.
Myself, if I had a lot more cool test equipment and a low EMI noise shielded lab, no doubt I would measure a lot more than I do now. I love cool test equipment, always have. But, it's a pain to do more than the minimum here, given the resources at hand. I sure don't want a distortion effect, I prefer the lowest distortion I can get. Fortunately, I am pretty good at listening, not great, but more skilled than many. I take time to remind periodically myself what DBT testing does for perceived differences (which could be the subject of another post). Also compare sound quality of my projects with what Benchmark does, which I think amounts to a type of measurement, although very incomplete. So far, it is working out not too bad.
Anyway, I don't see myself as either subjectivist or objectivist. I'm not an extremist believer in anything. More of a moderate, and practical in that I will use whatever I can that will get the job done. So, I don't think Dadaist would be a good fit here either.
Getting back to your projects, fuzz effects sound best on guitars and synths. If that's what you are designing for, I would encourage you to go for lots and lots of good sounding distortion.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.