OK, I tried hydrogen audio. It didn't go too well.

[Paul R]

Exactly, Yuri,

 

At least some people trained as Scientists have kept the spirit of Science alive and keep open minds and continue to experiment.

 

Others unfortunately claim to use Scientific methods, but make claims without listing their assumptions. Yet others think things cannot be possible because of a text they read or something like that and won't even do a two-minute test to check.

 

Yet others fight nail and tooth for ABX testing, and when that is provided to them, they start to doubt the ABX testing!

 

Boy howdy! But be careful not to empower the psuedoscience crowd, which is what I think happens way too often on the gasbag forums. .

 

We have folks trying to scientifically prove audio facts, and winding up with the bum bumblebee arguments. You know, where people put up crude and incomplete calculations and arguments why a bumblebee can not possibly fly? Of course, all one has to do is watch a bumblebee fly to know there is a mistake in those arguments.

 

I strongly suspect it is the same thing in Audio. It may be scientifically "impossible" for two bit perfect streams to sound different when played on different players or OS platforms, but if they do, then there is a flaw in your science.

 

Psuedoscientists are quite well known for ignoring facts that contradict their pet theories or otherwise prove inconvenient. You see a lot of that everywhere I am afraid.

 

Personally, I think Jud, John, Alex, and dozens of other folks here have identified a real phenomena, but *explaining* it is anything but easy.

 

Like the bumblebee however, empirical evidence, like listening, can provide a way to skip most of the arguments and get better audible results. Annoying as that is... that filter might sound better than this filter, or 24/192k might sound better than redbook, or even DSD might sound better than redbook. (grin)

[wgscott]

Yes, that's what I thought. So I didn't mean anything negative about Dennis or Bill (don't know who they are).

 

I'm Bill (William, the w in wgscott). Dennis is esldude. We are part of the local right-wing objectivist lunatic tin-eared propeller-hat flat-earth fringe.

[Jud]

I'm Bill (William, the w in wgscott). Dennis is esldude. We are part of the local right-wing objectivist lunatic tin-eared propeller-hat flat-earth fringe.

 

I prefer to think of you as Capitalist Running Dogs. :-)

[esldude]

I prefer to think of you as Capitalist Running Dogs. :-)

 

I admit I had to look that one up. Imperialist running dogs is another version. My oh my the influence China has on modern world culture.

 

I must say no one has ever called me that. Lots of things, but not that. In the words of the immortal Three Stooges, I don't think I even resemble that remark.

[livelistenlearn]

for the record, the last 3 posts ^^ just made me spit out some coffee onto my screen. albeit in a good way (i think).

that said, do excuse me while one respectfully tiptoes back out into the fringe of the spotlight. and lurk quietly.

[YashN]

We are part of the local right-wing objectivist lunatic tin-eared propeller-hat flat-earth fringe.

 

Hehehe!

[RealAudio]

 

We have folks trying to scientifically prove audio facts, and winding up with the bum bumblebee arguments. You know, where people put up crude and incomplete calculations and arguments why a bumblebee can not possibly fly? Of course, all one has to do is watch a bumblebee fly to know there is a mistake in those arguments.

 

 

The scientists said bumblebees can't fly is an urban myth.

 

 

http://bit.ly/1rd3Whr

[prot]

The cult of what?

 

The cult of DBT.

Very dangerous that cult ... their voodoo can make your $10000 cables sound exactly like a $10 zipcord from the supermarket

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

It really doesn't matter which software you prefer soundwise, since you would have to prove with a documented DBT that one player sounded better over another.

 

Couldn't agree less

 

It is worthy of note that at Audio Asylum and Head-Fi in their "Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum)", that the words 'DBT and ABX' are now banned from discussion. Given the amount of going around in circles that topic receives around here, copying that policy is a good idea.

 

Couldn't agree more

 

Being a moderately successful scientist by any reasonable standard, I don't really feel I need to prove anything to some anonymous goof-balls on the internet who, having recently discovered what a hammer can do, look everywhere to find some nails.They aren't scientists.They are anonymous keyboard bullies who slavishly ape what they wrongly perceive to be the aims and methodology of the natural sciences. It actually reminds me more of how things are done in the so-called social sciences (behavioral psychology and so on).

 

If history is any guide you will likely doubt the sincerity of my motivations but **in some respects, not all** I feel strangely the same way about many of yours (and other so called objectivists or "objectionist" criticisms about "audiophools". Now Bill,fwiw, I actually mean this sincerely and it is not as a left handed jab at you....but wonder whether you got a taste of your own medicine at HA. At least I find it a bit ironic. Perhaps that is unjustified, if so I apologise, but just saying. No doubt there will be an army of CA members willing to jump to your defence and in equal measure no doubt you can defend yourself should you feel like it. Again, no offense was intended.

 

Also not sure why the apparent swipe at the social sciences such as behavioural psychology except to say I get that human beings are not test tubes.Yes it makes testing hypotheses much harder.

 

 

 

As for double-blind tests, they are resorted to when nothing better is available. They are quite helpful in determining things like the efficacy of drugs. I think it would be wrong to dismiss the utility of such a thing out of hand. But in many fields of science, there is no need for such a primitive approach. All good experiments are designed to test hypotheses. Double-blind tests are useful for testing a null hypothesis. But they can't take you much further.

 

IMO, from a medical "scientific" background, Double blind randomised testing is the gold standard. I would agree about the limitations of DBT in relation to the audio perception of music but mainly related to the inadequacy of the test procedure itself and lack of a gold standard of reference. Then there is the issue of what outcome you are measuring eg such as statin drug use and lowered LDL cholesterol vs Heart attacks vs cardiac mortality. The cholesterol value is seen as a surrogate for one of the clinical outcomes (which may or may not be valid). As I've stated previously, audio measurements of electrical signals are merely surrogate values if you consider the end outcome to be musical perception of the listening experience. I accept that many are legitimately only interested in these types of objective surrogate measurements. The pseudoscience for me comes when trying to pass these measurements off as causally related (or even correlated necessarily) with the perception of the musical experience. It gets worse when it is dished out with "cult" like dogma with a big helping of sarcasm and ridicule.

 

Now this is not to say for a moment that many claims of audible difference are crap and that many audiophile products may be exploiting the gullible. However for those that start off assuming there is no possible difference , or that "know" there is no difference is IMO simply unintelligent and unscientific. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, notwithstanding debates about how much absence of evidence is required before you call it a day, or relying on not being able to be proved wrong (a lack of a falsifiable test situation if DBT is rejected).

 

Then there are just the nutters and dullards, self appointed and annointed experts who keep on harping on about bits is bits and you cant hear between the bits .I suspect very few disagree with the basics of computer science. And yes I know "nutters and dullards" is a form of ridicule…mea culpa…let me rephrase..YAWN.

 

A lot of people here are passionate about the hobby, and a hobby it is. If Joe Smith really likes software player "A" better than "B", and believes he can clearly hear a difference between them, good for him! On the other hand, if someone goes to the effort to try and rigorously prove something, good for him too. Neither one deserves or should expect ridicule.

 

The thing is, audio is a hobby. Hobbys rarely need to be protected against misinformation or craziness. In fact, sometimes they look for the crazy, and enjoy it all the more because it *is* crazy. Other's go almost crazy trying to point out that what is happenings impossible, unreasonable, and in plain speak, imaginary. They Lord!

 

Couldn’t agree more.

[beanbag]

Then there are just the nutters and dullards, self appointed and annointed experts who keep on harping on about bits is bits and you cant hear between the bits .

 

Bits are bits and you can't hear (nor sample) between the bits and if it bothers you that much then just get a Schiit Wryd or ipurifier for $99 and be done with it. Now can we get back to discussing how computers can make audio better instead of worse?

 

BTW, I am an expert in these matters.

[Jud]

Bits are bits and you can't hear (nor sample) between the bits and if it bothers you that much then just get a Schiit Wryd or ipurifier for $99 and be done with it. Now can we get back to discussing how computers can make audio better instead of worse?

 

BTW, I am an expert in these matters.

 

If you do say so (some might say anoint) yourself!

[wgscott]

wonder whether you got a taste of your own medicine at HA. At least I find it a bit ironic. Perhaps that is unjustified, if so I apologise, but just saying.

 

I do share the sense of irony (which was the main point of this 2.2 year old post), but in this particular case, the most amusing part is I wasn't actually claiming anything. I simply responded to a poll question about what playback software I use.

 

The knee-jerk response was to assume (ironically, as you just did) that I must be making some such claim. But I didn't. What I did do, which obviously was a much bigger sin, was to question the objectivity, authority and judgement of the so-called moderator.

 

the apparent swipe at the social sciences such as behavioural psychology

 

It was mainly a historical reference; Chomsky vs. B F Skinner.

 

Double blind randomised testing is the gold standard [in medicine].

 

The main point of this comment is that if, for example, you can readily measure significant and unambiguous differences in the audible spectrum between two cables, you wouldn't need to resort to a double-blind test. (You might still want one to determine whether the measured differences are indeed audible.)

[Jud]

(You might still want one to determine whether the measured differences are indeed audible.)

 

My unironic comment is that I would love to see some work on how effective DBTs are at probing sensory limits. (Thinking along the lines of Oohashi's subjects not being able to hear ultrasonics consciously, but EEG results being different in the presence of ultrasonics.)

[YashN]

The Anointed One!

 

It figures...

 

 

If you do say so (some might say anoint) yourself!

[wgscott]

My unironic comment is that I would love to see some work on how effective DBTs are at probing sensory limits. (Thinking along the lines of Oohashi's subjects not being able to hear ultrasonics consciously, but EEG results being different in the presence of ultrasonics.)

 

Would you find a DBT more compelling than EEG results?

[esldude]

My unironic comment is that I would love to see some work on how effective DBTs are at probing sensory limits. (Thinking along the lines of Oohashi's subjects not being able to hear ultrasonics consciously, but EEG results being different in the presence of ultrasonics.)

 

Not directly related, but some transient pulse trains with fMRi result.

 

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Furl%3Dhttp://www.researchgate.net/publication/13685844_Measurements_of_the_temporal_fMRI_response_of_the_human_auditory_cortex_to_trains_of_tones/file/79e4150cb39d654e85.pdf%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm3CEyZ0Df7aRIbqgSeGbeP72ViTlA%26oi%3Dscholarr&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sa=X&ei=MOScVICkIoKvggT7oYPQDA&ved=0CB4QgAMoADAA&usg=AFQjCNGcg49NfJo72IuTvJ60QfZ585r8sg&cad=rja

 

My idea is the reverse of course. If they get fMRi or EEG results mapped out quite well, I want to see how the results differ when someone listens to a sighted change. Say being monitored while listening to CD, then being told (and seeing) they next listen to DSD or 384/24. Then compare that to being told we are going back to CD (while actually playing Hires). In other words the effect of sighted information on aural perception.

[audiventory]

Double blind test is not panacea for separating true and false.

 

For it as for any experiment need correctly developed methodology.

 

Otherwise we can get non-correct result via "saint" double blind test.

 

Example:

1. in DBT we have 10 participants and 1 pair of speakers.

2. Chairs placed in 2 lines.

 

Here we have ambiguous things:

1. Participants sits in different sound zones (speaker has different characteristics for different room zones of listening).

2. Each participant have unknown level of knoleges.

 

Can we trust such "Double blind test"? What we test here: speakers? ears? or 24 vs 16 bit?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Bits are bits and you can't hear (nor sample) between the bits

 

Yep [YAWN]

 

and if it bothers you that much then just get a Schiit Wryd or ipurifier for $99 and be done with it.

 

Nope

 

Now can we get back to discussing how computers can make audio better instead of worse?

The OP was about Bill's experience regarding the views,attitudes and responses encountered from posting in another forum.

 

BTW, I am an expert in these matters.

do tell

 

I do share the sense of irony (which was the main point of this 2.2 year old post), but in this particular case, the most amusing part is I wasn't actually claiming anything. I simply responded to a poll question about what playback software I use. The knee-jerk response was to assume (ironically, as you just did) that I must be making some such claim. But I didn't. What I did do, which obviously was a much bigger sin, was to question the objectivity, authority and judgement of the so-called moderator.

 

I get that you just answered a poll and no I didnt assume you where making some such (subjectivist) claim. I havent followed the full chronology of events but suffice to say I still saw the irony in the situation, as did you,for other reasons. Having said that, I am completely and otherwise in accord with what you said about their attititudes,responses and pseudoscience stance.I dont blame you for standing up for yourself and having a go at the moderator,however, it was not entirely unpredictable that it wouldnt go well.Kudos to you nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

 

The main point of this comment is that if, for example, you can readily measure significant and unambiguous differences in the audible spectrum between two cables, you wouldn't need to resort to a double-blind test. (You might still want one to determine whether the measured differences are indeed audible.)

 

...and that the measured differences are even relevant as in causally related to the audible difference....and how indeed audible difference is confirmed.

 

I would love to see some work on how effective DBTs are at probing sensory limits. (Thinking along the lines of Oohashi's subjects not being able to hear ultrasonics consciously, but EEG results being different in the presence of ultrasonics.)

 

I agree but finding functional physiological correlates (EEG, functional MRI, PET scans etc) will not solve the problem entirely. They are still surrogate markers.At least they are several steps closer than measuring audio bits.I believe what you can say however is that if you find a reliable biomarker correlating with a perceived auditory difference you are well on the way especially if you can correlate that to an audio signal measurement.It still could come down to expectation bias analogous to placebo in medical circles. Both are real in that they can cause neuromodulation and physical change within the central and peripheral nervous system. These concepts or the different but related area of psychoacoustics are generally not the major topic of discussion on audio fora, but rather "are you fooling yourself or being fooled', is it real or imaginary.The medical analogy might be 'is this person a malingerer (consciously trying to fool me he is sick) or a "neurotic" of some sort (fooling themselves they are sick eg somatisation and somatoform disorders,hypochondriasis). Interestingly, and for which i have argued for many years, most of these concepts have been deleted from the DSMV (the latest psychiatrist diagnostic manual) as being obsolete and overly reductionist.They have been replaced with more workable,IMO, and less dualistic views of mind body interactions based in part on physiological studies.

 

 

 

My idea is the reverse of course. If they get fMRi or EEG results mapped out quite well, I want to see how the results differ when someone listens to a sighted change. Say being monitored while listening to CD, then being told (and seeing) they next listen to DSD or 384/24. Then compare that to being told we are going back to CD (while actually playing Hires). In other words the effect of sighted information on aural perception.

 

I agree that would be a worthwhile experiment

[audiventory]

Information by Jud about EEG and ultrasound correlation is interesting. May be it give new look to sound perception and audio equipment development.

[Jud]

Bits are bits and you can't hear (nor sample) between the bits....

 

Huh, strange, here I thought the conversion from digital to analog was precisely the process of allowing us to "hear...between the bits."

[Jud]

Information by Jud about EEG and ultrasound correlation is interesting. May be it give new look to sound perception and audio equipment development.

 

Interesting, yes, but not yet confirmed. Followup experiments by others were not able to confirm some of Oohashi's conclusions. (I am not certain these followups duplicated some of what Oohashi did exactly - so far as I'm able to determine from quick read-throughs, the followups asked whether people could hear differences, while Oohashi asked which musical passages the subjects enjoyed more. I also don't know whether EEGs were performed in the followups.)

[Jud]

Would you find a DBT more compelling than EEG results?

 

I think a possible parallel in medicine is studies that rely on self-reporting are usually not considered as reliable as those that include physiological measurements.

 

What I'd like to see, and think would be powerful, would be the *correlations*, or lack of same, between DBTs and brain scans. Regarding brain scans, the more specific and discriminating the type of scan the better, due to the degree of specialization of sensory neurons. I would love to see attempts to find correspondences with self-reported ability to hear differences, as well as self-reported greater enjoyment of one musical sample versus another.

 

Not directly related, but some transient pulse trains with fMRi result.

 

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Furl%3Dhttp://www.researchgate.net/publication/13685844_Measurements_of_the_temporal_fMRI_response_of_the_human_auditory_cortex_to_trains_of_tones/file/79e4150cb39d654e85.pdf%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm3CEyZ0Df7aRIbqgSeGbeP72ViTlA%26oi%3Dscholarr&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sa=X&ei=MOScVICkIoKvggT7oYPQDA&ved=0CB4QgAMoADAA&usg=AFQjCNGcg49NfJo72IuTvJ60QfZ585r8sg&cad=rja

 

My idea is the reverse of course. If they get fMRi or EEG results mapped out quite well, I want to see how the results differ when someone listens to a sighted change. Say being monitored while listening to CD, then being told (and seeing) they next listen to DSD or 384/24. Then compare that to being told we are going back to CD (while actually playing Hires). In other words the effect of sighted information on aural perception.

 

Yes, absolutely. I wonder along these lines if there might be work on what happens in the visual cortex when people are shown optical illusions, then are shown it *is* an illusion, then are shown the illusion again. Something like a "before and after" reaction to this video:

 

[beanbag]

Huh, strange, here I thought the conversion from digital to analog was precisely the process of allowing us to "hear...between the bits."

 

Dunno about your DAC, but mine has a comparator at the input stage that turns 1.1's and 0.9's back into 1's. Thus making it a DAC and not a DA3C (Digital and analog to analog converter). But if you have a problem, then get the Schiit wyrd.

[Jud]

Dunno about your DAC, but mine has a comparator at the input stage that turns 1.1's and 0.9's back into 1's. Thus making it a DAC and not a DA3C (Digital and analog to analog converter). But if you have a problem, then get the Schiit wyrd.

 

Ah yes, forgot, you have one of those good DACs that is absolutely immune to any audible effects of jitter, electrical noise, etc. Just happy little 1s and 0s marching along and being converted....

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

I think a possible parallel in medicine is studies that rely on self-reporting are usually not considered as reliable as those that include physiological measurements.

What I'd like to see, and think would be powerful, would be the *correlations*, or lack of same, between DBTs and brain scans. Regarding brain scans, the more specific and discriminating the type of scan the better, due to the degree of specialization of sensory neurons. I would love to see attempts to find correspondences with self-reported ability to hear differences, as well as self-reported greater enjoyment of one musical sample versus another.

I wonder along these lines if there might be work on what happens in the visual cortex when people are shown optical illusions, then are shown it *is* an illusion, then are shown the illusion again. Something like a "before and after" reaction to this video:

 

 

 

 

it depends on what the subject matter is and the decided outcome measure. This is relevant to audio perception if you look at say parallels to pain perception. A totally subjective Visual analogue scale (rate your pain from o to 10) is acceptable given the inherently subjective nature of the subject matter,"I feel pain". A positive intervention is seen as one that is statistically significant say beyond a 30% expected placebo response or compared to a control.Others demand more rigorous outcomes of say at least 80% pain relief for a spinal block. One of the difficulties with determing JND's (just noticeable differences) with sensory phenomena is that they may fall within the margin of error of the test instrument, and/or placebo response.This is IMO one of the reasons that BDT ABX audio tests are problematic, you need big differences to make it more reliable, and as hobbyists we are concerned with even the smallest nuances. In medicine the approach That I see most commonly is along the lines well if you cant determine a difference beyond placebo (say 30%) it doesnt really matter ie its not worth risking any potential harm of the intervention.In audio perception there is no harm apart from potentially to your wallet.

 

Even when being tested for eye spectacles it is commonplace to get muddled and confused when 'challenged' with "which one is better A or B". After a while, when measurable differneces become small, I really just can't tell.This may well support the notion that it really doesnt matter.Yet, on more tha one occasion I have returned to get my eye prescription altered after a week of use and unhappy with the first test "result." I am not confident that physiological correlates like EEG or brain scans will solve these problems. This is entirely different to when the subjective perception **does have known physiological biomarkers** such as breathlessness in Asthma where one can measure airflow restriction and oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in the blood (not to say asthmatics cant feel breathless for other reasons).Pain or auditory perception do not have these kind of physiological correlates.

 

I am not saying stop trying to resolve the hearing differences issue but merely how difficult it is IMO for some of the reasons alluded to above. For me sometimes perception is reality, if it hurts less it hurts less and if it sounds better it sounds better (once you have carefully weighed the potential harm in both those scenarios).I know how deeply unsatisfying that is to some. I too would like to know Im not fooling myself and applaud those trying to improve the quality of the sound signal (as opposed to those who just wish to ridicule and into self aggrandisment for which I find a close correlation, and I wager a causal relationship).

 

Hey Merry Christmas, back to the left-overs !

Cheers

David