Great. I would like to find out more about how the experiments are conducted, particularly details that may be omitted from publication for whatever reason. Might be very interesting.
Also, don't know if anybody in this thread participated in PMA's hi-res listening test here in the forum not too long ago. There were some interesting and perhaps inexplicable results. Would be nice to have an expert around who might be willing to offer some thoughts on it.
Also, don't know if anybody in this thread participated in PMA's hi-res listening test here in the forum not too long ago. There were some interesting and perhaps inexplicable results. Would be nice to have an expert around who might be willing to offer some thoughts on it.
When my toes are tapping along to some 1920's Jelly Roll Morton I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of the reproduction 😛
It is far more common the other way round: someone who likes 'bright', 'warm' etc. tries to insist that his preference has better fidelity than a neutral system. I tend to use the term 'audiophile' to refer to the former person, and say 'hi-fi enthisiast' for the person who prefers a neutral system. A hi-fi enthuisiast says that he prefers neutral, but he would never insist that others should prefer it too; he does insist (rightly) that neutral has higher fidelity.Konzentr8 said:
The test for an audiophile is: do I like it? Do I enjoy the music?
The test for a hi-fi enthusiast is: does this sound like the original?
Be aware that there is another definition of audiophile: someone who tolerates the music so he can listen to his equipment.
It gets back to the question, which audible sound isn't measurable with today's measuring technology? The answer is none.
Which measurable sound isn't audible to us? The answer is lots.
Sure. What about the times when people post audibility claims on internet forums?
People can be fatigued by sounds they aren't even aware of. This has been demonstrated in at least a couple of tests.
Also, exposure to loud supersonic sounds can affect your hearing long term and short term. Even though you can't hear the sound, your ear goes into compression mode (becomes less sensitive or "turns the volume down"). This will affect your hearing of audible sound and also cause distress (like a headache or general feeling of malaise).
This is physiology. Ask an audiologist or speech and hearing specialist.
Also, exposure to loud supersonic sounds can affect your hearing long term and short term. Even though you can't hear the sound, your ear goes into compression mode (becomes less sensitive or "turns the volume down"). This will affect your hearing of audible sound and also cause distress (like a headache or general feeling of malaise).
This is physiology. Ask an audiologist or speech and hearing specialist.
But you couldn't name one then and still can't.
He was talking about what we do in our minds with the sound we hear, not what soundwaves we detect with our ears.
We are dealing with sound reproducing electronics here, aren't we? The term hi-fi is a criteria in which the quality of those electronics' performance is judged. Without such criteria, it's wild wild west, anything goes including crap products.
For one I have yet to see a measurement that quantifies DDR (ability to reproduce small detail). Or the ability to throw a realistic 3D soundstage/image/
dave
It's been explained already that any change in soundwaves that causes the change in perceivable soundstage to us can be shown in graphic form, i.e. frequency response chart.
Did you know that the frequency response chart can show the changes that are too small for us to perceive the change in soundstage? Think about that for a moment.
I doubt it's possible to measure the subjective effects of psychoacoustics without running a brain scan and then having an "expert" interpret the results with relation to the things that a microphone and software can measure simultaneously
It hasn’t… but it is obvious from this and other discussions that you are firm in your (mis?)beliefs so no pint to continue to argue.
dave
Straw man much?
I was referring to empirically observable physiological effects. The US military even uses this concept to provide non-lethal deterrent. Look up "sound cannons."
Your sound reproducing equipment is capable of reproducing supersonic distortion artifacts if they are produced. Your sound reproducing equipment is capable of producing harmonic and intermodulation artifacts, some of which can be supersonic. You can measure and observe it.
Not empirical enough for you?
It is finally the dawn of a time when this is going to be possible, with a number of small affordable wireless EEG machines now on the market. Like these. MUSE ™ | Meditation Made Easy
dave
What would be interesting is to have a set of headphones what had perfect reproduction
and was also tuned to an individuals hearing so that all sounds were of equal intensity.
and was also tuned to an individuals hearing so that all sounds were of equal intensity.
Psychoacoustics is real. I've had people (usually musicians) mock me for referring to it, but it's a fact that our ears work in a certain way and it's a fact that our brain interprets the signals our ears transmit to it in a certain way. It's a fact that our hearing is extremely sensitive to some things (like targeting the location of a sound) and grossly insensitive to other things (like small changes in sound pressure level). That's because our hearing isn't a microphone and an oscilloscope. It's an integrated system fine tuned by evolution to provide features crucial to our survival as hunters and gatherers. Nature never intended for us to artificially reproduce sound and muse over our system's shortcomings. In the cavemen days, that and $4.00 would get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.😉
Do you mean all frequencies? Unfortunately that's not how our hearing works
Fletcher–Munson curves - Wikipedia
It is, by doing an actual EEG as a data result should makes things clearer and takes the listener’s perception to vocal or written interpretation out of the equation.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.