Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pcstockton]

Another possibility is the user expectation in a sighted listening test. User expectation is a strong force. It can produce big audio quality differences.

You can't claim both a powerful influence by expectations AND your inferred point that it is dismissible.

If you think it sounds, tastes, looks, feels better, it does.  FULL STOP.  PERIOD.  

Regardless of measurable data, if it sounds better to the observer, it IS.

-Patrick

[BryanC]

Regardless of measurable data, if it sounds better to the observer, it IS.

Not true at all.

If I "see" a mirage off in the distance, that means it actually exists?

[Alex B]

The point is that the human auditory system is not a reliable measurement tool. The results vary depending on the listener's mood, physical state and, for example, the input of other senses than hearing can affect the results (e.g. user expectation in a sighted test).

In addition, our auditory memory is not very good or precise. In blind audio codec listening tests, when nearly transparent samples are compared to the lossless reference sample, I have been able to hear differences only when the tested passage is very short. When the difference is subtle, about five seconds is often the maximum duration that can be successfully ABX tested when exactly the same passage in two different formats is repeatedly played.

When different source devices are compared, switching from a playback device to another and possibly seeking the correct starting point causes a pause and distracts the tester. That can make even a blind listening test quite unreliable. (Once again, I'm speaking about very subtle differences between HW devices that are intended to be transparent, not obvious differences. If you are testing speakers the situation is quite different.)

[pcstockton]

Not true at all.

If I "see" a mirage off in the distance, that means it actually exists?

Well yes, according to your senses it does (although that is besides the point).  It doesn't matter whether it actually exists in physical reality.  Take an afterimage for example.  When someone takes your picture and you have the blue dot in your visual field, it certainly isn't actually floating around in front of you.  But it surely exists in your perception. 

If someone thinks/believes it sounds better, it DOES sound better to them.  It is a subjective perception not unlike finding something beautiful. There is no way to empirically test this, but we do understand what we feel.  If I say I can hear a difference in the music given the quality of the mains cable used, then it does exist [to me].

You cant say at the same time that (sometimes fallacious) human perception is ultimately powerful enough to shape our experiences AND that it should be ignored.  It makes no sense.

[BryanC]

If you are arguing that reality is purely subjective, then there is obviously no reason for us to discuss this any further.

[rick.ca]

You cant say at the same time that (sometimes fallacious) human perception is ultimately powerful enough to shape our experiences AND that it should be ignored.  It makes no sense.

Although there's nothing wrong with attributing a perceived difference to something physical, it makes no sense to inflict this upon others. In other words, suggesting I consider using a "better" cable because you perceive a difference is absurd.

If you think it sounds, tastes, looks, feels better, it does.  FULL STOP.  PERIOD.

But that's just the thing. Many of these self-proclaimed "audiophiles" won't STOP. Just because one perceives a difference in something produced by a musician, chef, artist, masseuse, audio engineer software developer doesn't mean they should do anything differently. If they happen to be producing something just for you, that might be appropriate. But usually they're not.

I'm not suggesting these perceptions should not be discussed. Having and sharing them seems to be an important part of the audiophile experience. But I wish they wouldn't cross the line into the engineering/scientific realm and suggest these perceptions have any place in determining how to faithfully reproduce sound.

I feel a little left out—not being able to afford the kind of gear (kit?) these people like to talk about. Maybe I'll look for a DSP that will allow me to experience the virtual power cord, cable, wooden knob, etc.

If you are arguing that reality is purely subjective...

Are you aware of a reality that isn't? That's not a reason for ending a discussion. Failure to agree on a basis for the discussion probably is.

[BryanC]

Are you aware of a reality that isn't? That's not a reason for ending a discussion. Failure to agree on a basis for the discussion probably is.

You must assume that there exists an objective reality outside of our sensory perception, otherwise our exercises in science and philosophy would be pointless (including discussions of such things). There may indeed not be an objective reality, but I find it hard to believe that this truth would manifest itself solely in the propagation of sound waves.

[flac.rules]

You can't claim both a powerful influence by expectations AND your inferred point that it is dismissible.

If you think it sounds, tastes, looks, feels better, it does.  FULL STOP.  PERIOD.  

Regardless of measurable data, if it sounds better to the observer, it IS.

-Patrick

Thats true, it does sound better to the observer. However its a very bad idea to let this observations have a big impact on how you do things technically. The engineering/technical side should handle what is the actual difference in sound quality. If not, you risk getting worse sound quality, based on these perceptions (something i would argue has already happend and is a serious problem for audio-quality)

[rick.ca]

You must assume that there exists an objective reality outside of our sensory perception, otherwise our exercises in science and philosophy would be pointless (including discussions of such things).

Exactly my point. Neither science or philosophy have any claims on what is reality. Both disciplines are based on assumptions and deductive reasoning. No two scientists or philosophers can collaborate or have a meaningful discussion unless they agree on the assumptions. Audiophiles and sound engineers can't either. And claiming the support of science or philosophy in their arguments just makes the whole exercise more absurd.

[pcstockton]

Although there's nothing wrong with attributing a perceived difference to something physical, it makes no sense to inflict this upon others. In other words, suggesting I consider using a "better" cable because you perceive a difference is absurd.

It isn't absurd if you demo it and agree.  No one is forcing you into anything.  As with ALL things audio (or video) do your own pepsi challenge.

-patrick

[flac.rules]

Exactly my point. Neither science or philosophy have any claims on what is reality. Both disciplines are based on assumptions and deductive reasoning. No two scientists or philosophers can collaborate or have a meaningful discussion unless they agree on the assumptions. Audiophiles and sound engineers can't either. And claiming the support of science or philosophy in their arguments just makes the whole exercise more absurd.

Scientists don't concern them selfs with reality Science has the ability to create results, and predict what will happen in the world we sense. If that word corresponds with some objective world or not is irrelevant. Our perceived world is our only world, whatever lies behind it makes no difference.

[rick.ca]

Our perceived world is our only world, whatever lies behind it makes no difference.

I suppose, even if you're not an atheist, this idea is applicable to the situation. But it only explains why this is a heated and completely useless discussion. The participants have not established any agreed-upon basis for sharing personal perceptions.

It isn't absurd if you demo it and agree.

Of course it is. It's doubly absurd. You now have two individuals believing their common perception is evidence of a common effect, shutting the door on any possibility of an explanation that might be provable and therefore have broader application.

[pcstockton]

this is a heated and completely useless discussion.

agreed.

[JimH]

I don't think so.  It's interesting.  It does point out a need for ground rules.

Language that talks about the facts and opinions, without throwing stones at those on the other side.

[Mr ChriZ]

.  FULL STOP.  PERIOD.  

That's a fair number of full stops you've got there.  

[pcstockton]

Rick's point about it being a heated and pointless discussion is spot on.

There is really only one thing that matters.....  How does it sound to YOU.

If the mains cable sounds better, buy it.  If WAVs are identical to FLACs, use FLACs.  If 24/96 sounds much better than 16/44, get your ass on HDTracks.

No science or snake oil required.

Just try for yourself and take others' suggestions and experiences with as many grains of salt as you want.

We can talk about science (good or bad) all day long but it doesn't matter unless we are listening to theoretical music.

[drmimosa]

It's interesting to keep in mind here that sound and music are two different things entirely.

Sound consists waves propagated through air (or sand, or water) that can be heard when it reaches the ear. 

Music is organized sound. Perception organizes sound, and creates music in the process.

I would even argue that music doesn't require sound to exist as music, it can exist an idea alone.

A great example (as far afield from the technical realm as possible, indulge me) is in an early written piano score by Beethoven, his Opus 7 Piano Sonata. In the middle of the slow movement, he marks for a note to be stuck and then get louder, a crescendo from a soft pianissimo to the following chord, which is marked with a "sF" accent. This is impossible, a piano is physically incapable of increasing volume after a note is struck. However, the effect is real! Beethoven heard this crescendo in his mind, any pianist playing this piece has to hear it as well. A performer can even convey this effect across to an audience, using timing, articulation, etc.

In effect, this musical score calls for a sound that doesn't exist. A good performance conveys this to the audience, effectively creating an impossible sound through musical ideas.

In the musical realm, if you hear something, it is real.

[rick.ca]

We can talk about science (good or bad) all day long but it doesn't matter unless we are listening to theoretical music.

I haven't followed this closely enough to know if others are suggesting the discussion should be restricted to science. But that's not at all my point, and I've said anything that would suggest that. My point is this: Nothing about personal perceptions or scientific deduction can be communicated effectively if there is no established understanding as how to keep some sensible separation between the two.

I'm frustrated with the apparent consequences of this. Just because I'm not an audiophile, doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to learn from those who are with a view to realizing the best sound possible in my particular circumstances. To use a simple example (although it wasn't always so simple to me), it's important to understand something about the differences between WAV, FLAC and MP3 so I can make a sensible choice for myself. I got the understanding I needed from those who explained the objective technical aspects and related measurable differences. From that understanding, I'm supremely confident FLAC is right for me, knowing also I'm extremely unlikely to hear any difference between high quality MP3, FLAC and WAV (or that if I could, that I would care). Endless debates about whether or not it should be possible to hear the difference between FLAC and WAV are of not objective and of no interest to me. I have no objection to someone saying, "I'm not sure why, but I hear a difference..." Understanding the context of such a claim, I might say to myself, "Right. And I may too if I had a $50,000 kit, the gall to use that term, and ears 30 years younger." But if I didn't have the understanding I do, and these claims are being made in a way that implies there is a difference beyond the realm of perception, they're not just unhelpful, they're misleading.

Another beef I have is with all the talk to provide a "pure audio" button (presumably) for audiophiles. What for? Anyone who can't figure out how to configure MC to do the same thing either isn't a true audiophile, hasn't made an appropriate effort to configure the program, or doesn't have due respect for the development work that's gone into it. What about the rest of us? That is, the 80% of us who are not audiophiles, or those who don't care at all about audio. What button do I push help me figure out how to best deal with my crappy SPDIF connection to an average, aging consumer-grade receiver? Or if these are things difficult to make any clearer within the program itself, where's the forum discussion about how to identify the weakest link in such a set of circumstances? I wouldn't expect that to be one discussion. But if they're a bunch of separate discussions, all the more reason why those should try to respect some sort of understanding on how to communicate objective measures of things likely to make a difference to the reader.

So I have absolutely no disagreement with this...

There is really only one thing that matters.....  How does it sound to YOU.

Or this...

In the musical realm, if you hear something, it is real.

But I wish these things could be discussed with the small degree of objectivity that would allow me to understand what might make a difference to ME. Sorry to be so blatantly selfish, but that's why I'm here.

[DarkPenguin]

But I wish these things could be discussed with the small degree of objectivity that would allow me to understand what might make a difference to ME. Sorry to be so blatantly selfish, but that's why I'm here.

Here you go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbLVjHfHahg&feature=related

Be forewarned he is a heretic (Once it goes to recording I wouldn't bother..) ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

[pcstockton]

nice post Rick.  Heading out to grab some food.  I have some comments for you when I get home.  We are all in the same boat, and I think we all share the same basic first principles.  We are simply talking past each other etc....

[pcstockton]

these conversations are MUCH more fruitful in person, over a pint or 4, while listening to some great new music.  Wanna have a sleepover?

[JimH]

Good idea.