pkane2001

Hi Tom, DeltaWave is continually worked on and improved, but I've stopped posting here since there's very little interest. This is where DeltaWave was born, but not where it currently lives :) I've no idea what this person is talking about. DeltaWave is capable of aligning two waveforms with an accuracy of a very tiny fraction of a single sample. The less noise and clock drift present in the recorded waveform, the more accurate the alignment. With noise and clock drift, simply a larger size recording is needed to get the same precision.

I would be OK with an optical feed. It might offer a better noise rejection 😉

And I was so looking forward to feeding DSD1048576 directly into my brain!

I was looking for an I2S connection to hook-up streaming services directly into my brain. Bit-perfect playback all the way through would be nice! 😎

I know you do, Josh. And I'm not an expert in many things, although I try to learn as much as I can about things that I think are important. And, of course, I find it fun to figure things out on my own. Always have. Someone telling me how something works never helped me. I have to go through the process of thinking about it, testing different things out, and finding out for myself. Maybe it's a character flaw...

Anything important is worth the time investment :)

A better way to judge the validity of something is not to figure out which expert to trust when they disagree. It is, IMO, to learn enough about the topic to be able to formulate a supportable and coherent opinion of your own. One that may or may not align with the "expert" opinion of others.

And yet it was objective findings and measurements by @Archimago, @GoldenOne, @mansr and others that built a convincing case against MQA. The big stamp of approval for MQA came from audiophile press, and mostly the non-objective-minded audiophiles who "heard" the improvement rather than those who measured it. That is what is damaging, IMHO: a belief in marketing copy without question or critical thinking.

Hi Jud, sure, there were a few studies, as I recall, finding that pitch recall was the only thing affected by this type of masking. The result was only replicated when testing for pitch recognition, and not any other aspects of sound. Which is why I doubt this particular result was directly related to echoic memory, as what you suggest as the "destruction" of previous recording in echoic memory by the next sound event should, in theory, affect all aspects of sound recognition.

Not sure about Deutsch, I only had a quick look, but that was a study in pitch recognition rather than sound recognition. To Jud's question, there is an effect due to backward temporal masking by another signal. This can cause errors with an up to about 500ms interval (ISI), so in A/B testing rapid switching should leave enough time (1+ seconds is enough) to make sure this effect doesn't cause unwanted errors.

True. But echoic memory is a bit different. It exists because, unlike with visual processing, the ear can't go over the current "sound image" more than once, and to take time to analyze it in order to convert it into recognizable symbols that can then be transferred into longer term memory. The retina can be scanned multiple times during a single scene analysis, but you can't scan sound that's not there anymore. This is what echoic memory is for: to keep the sound around long enough for the brain to process it, possibly with multiple scans, and to then store it into a longer term memory. It's like a memory buffer. The experiment that Jud referred to was using a masking signal that interrupted the brain processing of the original signal in echoic memory, causing errors in recollection. Or, at least, that's what it appears to be on a quick scan of the article and the paper by Diana Deutsch, et al.

Jud, there are some studies that show that this might be an example of auditory backward recognition masking. This is where an intervening set of similar signals cause an incorrect recall of the original event as the result of a too quick an introduction of a masking signal. This is not as much caused by the short echoic memory, but rather, by the speed with which the brain is analyzing and processing what is in the echoic memory, and if that analysis is interrupted by another signal requiring analysis before it completes.

Thanks for the concern, David, but I'm far from frustrated, and my feelings are not hurt. I'm sure Chris is a big boy and can (and has) voiced his feelings already. I didn't attack Chris, and he didn't attack me. I felt he misunderstood what I posted. So I posted an explanation that didn't resolve things even after a few rounds of back and forth. Oh well, such is life. Next time I'll use ChatGPT to help clarify things ;)

Sure. Let's try it :) ---------- Dear Frank, I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to delve into a fascinating aspect of audio perception and evaluation—expectation bias—and its profound implications for listening tests, particularly within the realm of audio and audiophiles. Expectation bias, simply put, is the tendency for our expectations to influence our perceptions and interpretations of events or information. In the context of audio evaluation, this bias can significantly impact how we perceive the quality of sound reproduction, making it a crucial consideration in any listening test. Listening tests, especially those conducted by audiophiles, aim to discern and judge the quality of audio equipment or recordings. However, the subjective nature of human perception, coupled with the potent influence of expectation bias, complicates these assessments. When participants in listening tests are aware of the brand, price, or technical specifications of the audio equipment being tested, their preconceived expectations about the quality of sound can heavily sway their judgments. If they believe they are listening to a high-end, expensive system, they might involuntarily attribute superior qualities to the sound, even if it's objectively identical to a less esteemed setup. Furthermore, our brains are wired to perceive what we expect to perceive. If participants are informed that a particular audio system possesses certain characteristics—be it a warm, rich sound or exceptional clarity—their minds may subconsciously adapt to perceive those qualities, even if they aren't objectively present. In the world of audiophiles, where subtle nuances and minute details in sound reproduction are sought after and revered, expectation bias becomes an even more formidable factor. Audiophiles invest significant time and money into their audio setups, nurturing strong beliefs about the superiority of their chosen components. This emotional attachment and belief in the superiority of their equipment can profoundly influence how they perceive and evaluate sound quality, often leading to biased conclusions. This bias isn't limited to just the equipment. Expectation bias can also extend to the content being played. If listeners are primed to believe they're listening to a high-fidelity recording of a renowned orchestra, they might be inclined to perceive it as superior, even if the actual recording is of average quality. Addressing expectation bias in listening tests within the audio realm is a complex challenge. Blind testing, where participants evaluate sound without knowledge of the equipment or content, is a common approach to mitigate this bias. However, even blind tests aren't foolproof, as participants might still form expectations based on subtle cues. In conclusion, expectation bias profoundly affects the validity of listening tests in audio evaluations, especially within the community of audiophiles. Recognizing and accounting for this bias is crucial when assessing and interpreting perceived differences in sound quality. Striving for more objective methodologies and encouraging unbiased evaluation criteria can aid in mitigating the impact of expectation bias, thus fostering a more accurate understanding of audio quality. Warm regards, ChatGPT

Seriously, David? You're going to tell me that as an objectivist, I can have no feelings and can express no emotions? I am human, I assure you.