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

[Jud]

So, anyone heard any good music lately?

 

I find it interesting that this thread, started by Bill as a reasonably lighthearted amused/bemused story of being careful what one wishes for (in my reading, anyway - Bill can correct me if that's too far wrong), is now the scene of such earnest argumentation about those wonderfully amusing and lighthearted topics, the efficacy of double-blind testing in audio and how much we should enjoy the Hydrogen Audio forums. Surely the latter is down to personal taste; and as to the former, I find myself doubting the thousand-and-first discussion will be the one that finally has everyone agreeing on a single answer.

 

So as long as we're continuing this necro-thread, I'm looking for a discussion topic that might prove more fruitful.

[wgscott]

You are exactly right.

 

It seems to be a ritual for HA trolls to come by here and necro-post.

 

Also, by trying to turn it into a discussion about DBT, it is an attempt at revisionism. My experience there had NOTHING to do with posting any claims (objective or subjective), which I did not do. It was entirely about their arbitrary and capricious "moderation" and their collective cargo-cult approach to what they wrongly believe to be scientific method.

[YashN]

Maybe Jud now better understands my displeasure at seeing 'krabapple' over here...

 

With our new friend prot and his useless trolling posts on all threads he doesn't understand, things have gone downhill a bit.

 

Listening to Eric Serra's very Vangelis-Antarctica-inspired 'Le Grand Bleu' soundtrack in WAV, real-time upsampling to DSD2x with HQ Player Evaluation version.

[wgscott]

Maybe Jud now better understands my displeasure at seeing 'krabapple' over here...

 

With our new friend prot and his useless trolling posts on all threads he doesn't understand, things have gone downhill a bit.

 

Listening to Eric Serra's very Vangelis-Antarctica-inspired 'Le Grand Bleu' soundtrack in WAV, real-time upsampling to DSD2x with HQ Player Evaluation version.

 

Keep in mind the root problem at HA is intolerance of opinions at variance with the majority. If he stays around, he might learn a bit.

[esldude]

So, anyone heard any good music lately?

 

I find it interesting that this thread, started by Bill as a reasonably lighthearted amused/bemused story of being careful what one wishes for (in my reading, anyway - Bill can correct me if that's too far wrong), is now the scene of such earnest argumentation about those wonderfully amusing and lighthearted topics, the efficacy of double-blind testing in audio and how much we should enjoy the Hydrogen Audio forums. Surely the latter is down to personal taste; and as to the former, I find myself doubting the thousand-and-first discussion will be the one that finally has everyone agreeing on a single answer.

 

So as long as we're continuing this necro-thread, I'm looking for a discussion topic that might prove more fruitful.

 

So you had to come in and ruin the thread Jud. We had a good argument going and were just a few posts from finally clearing up this whole blind, not blind testing thing. The entire internet would have benefitted. But NOOOOOO! You come into this mess and politely drop the M-word. Music.

[tne]

Maybe Jud now better understands my displeasure at seeing 'krabapple' over here...

 

With our new friend prot and his useless trolling posts on all threads he doesn't understand, things have gone downhill a bit.

 

 

I am not sure why any of this bothers you. We should all remain free to post, read, and not read anything we choose as long as it is not abusive or excessively commercial ( and this latter issue is completely Chris C.'s call ).

 

As I see it complaining about HA and then bemoaning members from that forum who do not share your opinions coming here and "trolling" is quite hypocritical. It is so simple - do not read or reply to posts based on your own judgements.

 

 

Happy and Prosperous New Year to all of you.

[YashN]

Having seen the extensive discussions involving krabapple and Amir over there, I doubt that.

 

Keep in mind the root problem at HA is intolerance of opinions at variance with the majority. If he stays around, he might learn a bit.

[wgscott]

Or you might ...

[Bystander]

If there is enough sighted reports, some from those whose opinion I trust & I have verified the sighted results myself, then yes, I distrust an ABX delivering contrary results & figure it is flawed.

I'm fairly certain most people's subjective listening experience will be superior when told that one's listening to lossless files compared to compressed audio, even if in reality the exact same file is played back every time. Same goes for equipment depending on the front plate/price, and similar considerations. That's certainly been my personal experience. What I 'know' to be lossless files 'sound' better to me, regardless of whether there's an actual difference between the files. There can be no doubt that I can't trust myself with sighted listening evaluations, unless the difference is blindingly obvious and easily described (and there I'm mainly thinking of noise, high distortion, large differences in audio volume, very different EQ settings, large differences in reverberation time, standing waves, etc.). In most cases, I simply need to confirm my impressions in a DBT in order not to fool myself that I perceive differences where there really are none. I find it unlikely that I should be the exception in that regard, but who knows... I certainly would never trust anyone's sighted reports of hearing differences between cables or software players.

[Jud]

I am not sure why any of this bothers you. We should all remain free to post, read, and not read anything we choose as long as it is not abusive or excessively commercial ( and this latter issue is completely Chris C.'s call ).

 

As I see it complaining about HA and then bemoaning members from that forum who do not share your opinions coming here and "trolling" is quite hypocritical. It is so simple - do not read or reply to posts based on your own judgements.

 

 

Happy and Prosperous New Year to all of you.

 

+1 to all these sentiments.

 

I very much like the fact that Chris has made this an open forum. I'm primarily concerned with learning more in order to allow greater enjoyment of our hobby, whether it's about new music, or new information about equipment and software and how they work. In both respects, I've been greatly helped by people who don't share many of my opinions, as well as by those who do. I look forward to more of the same in the coming year.

[Jud]

So you had to come in and ruin the thread Jud. We had a good argument going and were just a few posts from finally clearing up this whole blind, not blind testing thing. The entire internet would have benefitted. But NOOOOOO! You come into this mess and politely drop the M-word. Music.

 

Happy New Year, my friend.

[mmerrill99]

I'm fairly certain most people's subjective listening experience will be superior when told that one's listening to lossless files compared to compressed audio, even if in reality the exact same file is played back every time. Same goes for equipment depending on the front plate/price, and similar considerations. That's certainly been my personal experience. What I 'know' to be lossless files 'sound' better to me, regardless of whether there's an actual difference between the files. There can be no doubt that I can't trust myself with sighted listening evaluations, unless the difference is blindingly obvious and easily described (and there I'm mainly thinking of noise, high distortion, large differences in audio volume, very different EQ settings, large differences in reverberation time, standing waves, etc.). In most cases, I simply need to confirm my impressions in a DBT in order not to fool myself that I perceive differences where there really are none. I find it unlikely that I should be the exception in that regard, but who knows... I certainly would never trust anyone's sighted reports of hearing differences between cables or software players.

Yes our auditory perception is a highly editorialised version of the vibrations at the ear. This editorialising is needed to present us with what might be important in the soundfield for our survival. This has & continues to serve us well in the real world & we don;t tend to "fool" ourselves too often. Anyway, the consequences of "fooling" ourselves in audio is an over-spend & not life & death. But, sighted or blind we editorialise these vibrations - not just sighted listening. As a result we need to evaluate each blind listening test & not just assume that it is "more correct" than sighted listening.

 

You may have missed the point where I said I verify the results for myself - I'm using the large body of sighted reports to steer me towards something that I might find worthwhile verifying for myself. If having done that & ABX testing gives contrary results then I distrust the ABX testing, yes!

 

I'm using the sighted test results not as a determiner of what I hear but as a useful pointer to what might be worth personally investigating. I might use a personal blind test at times to tease out an area I'm doubtful about. Others seem to use blind test reports to tell them what is NOT worth personally investigating without any regard for how valid the blind test is. A crazy position to take, if you ask me.

[Jud]

There can be no doubt that I can't trust myself with sighted listening evaluations, unless the difference is blindingly obvious and easily described (and there I'm mainly thinking of noise, high distortion, large differences in audio volume, very different EQ settings, large differences in reverberation time, standing waves, etc.). In most cases, I simply need to confirm my impressions in a DBT in order not to fool myself that I perceive differences where there really are none. I find it unlikely that I should be the exception in that regard, but who knows... I certainly would never trust anyone's sighted reports of hearing differences between cables or software players.

 

Highlighted some wording for the sake of discussion. *If* one had a DAC whose chip's 8x interpolation filters had substantial ringing; and *if* such ringing "smears" transients well into the audible range, as I believe Miska has mentioned from time to time (I believe he said something on the order of the period of a 1kHz wave, so 1/1000th of a second - obviously in the heart of the audible range, but also obviously a very, very brief period); and *if* one used a software player or offline converter to do upsampling/filtering that did not have such ringing; then I suppose one might make an argument that such differences could at least in principle be audible.

 

I will note once again in this connection that the first time I tried Miska's HQPlayer, which offers a number of different filters, I was very surprised by the degree of difference in the sound that resulted from changing filters. This sort of experience leads me to allow my own sighted listening slightly greater credence, since being surprised by expectation bias is to me an oxymoron.

[Bystander]

we need to evaluate each blind listening test & not just assume that it is "more correct" than sighted listening.

That very much depends on whether you're interested in what you're actually hearing, or in the overall experience you're having at a certain moment, which will necessarily be influenced by additional information like the fact that you think you're listening to $1000 cables.

 

You may have missed the point where I said I verify the results for myself

It all depends on what you mean by 'verify'. If you're talking about blind listening, then I'm fully with you there.

 

 

I'm using the sighted test results not as a determiner of what I hear but as a useful pointer to what might be worth personally investigating. .

Again, what does investigating me? For me personally, it would have to be a blind test, as I generally simply can't trust my sighted evaluation. That I know from experience – as much as you can really 'know' anything from experience...

 

[...] then I suppose one might make an argument that such differences could at least in principle be audible.

 

Which means you'd hear them in a blind listening test. Or they aren't in fact audible to you.

[Jud]

then I suppose one might make an argument that such differences could at least in principle be audible.

 

 

Which means you'd hear them in a blind listening test. Or they aren't in fact audible to you.

 

It may in fact be the case that blind listening tests will be shown to be efficacious to that extent, or have already been shown to be efficacious to that extent and I'm unaware of the experiments that established this. I don't mean to be exasperating, but I will simply say for a number of reasons my skepticism currently extends not only to the results of my sighted listening impressions, but also to blind testing as ultimate arbiter of the truth of human auditory perception. You can find some friendly conversation among Bill, Dennis (esldude), David (Audiophile Neuroscientist) and me upthread about some of the reasons I think this way.

[Daudio]

Maybe Jud now better understands my displeasure at seeing 'krabapple' over here... With our new friend prot and his useless trolling posts on all threads he doesn't understand, things have gone downhill a bit.

 

+1

[Bystander]

I will simply say for a number of reasons my skepticism currently extends not only to the results of my sighted listening impressions, but also to blind testing as ultimate arbiter of the truth of human auditory perception.

I would in no way disagree with that. But whatever effect the sight of an expensive hifi system has on your listening experience (or the knowledge that you're listening to 'Audio-Nirvana-HQ-Perfect-Plus' instead of 'iTunes'), it will not help you hear any more details in the music than if you had no such knowledge.

 

As for differences in the audio quality of software players, I'm reminded of this little story

 

Jeff Robbin then asked us a funny question that had obviously been percolating for a while: "Does Audion do any kind of special filtering?" You see, since the beginning of time, press reviews in magazines, websites, etc., had consistently said that Audion simply sounds "better" than SoundJam, without question. It wasn't until that declaration showed up in a very respectable, high-end British Hi-Fi magazine that people started to take it even more seriously. Audion was always noted for being "richer" or "sweeter", and we were tremendously proud of our incredible results in this regard.The only problem was: we didn't do anything. We have no idea why people heard Audion as sounding better. We certainly didn't add any special filtering or "sound better" code. Our MP3 decoding process was about as ordinary as you could get. On paper, logically, there should have been absolutely no reason why Audion would sound any better or worse than SoundJam.

We put Jeff's mind at final, restful ease by blowing the big secret that, no, we also had no idea where that was coming from, but we definitely weren't about to argue. Who knows, maybe we did write some "sound better" code in a drunken haze — we're afraid to check!

[Daudio]

Subjectivist 'complaints' often run a repetitive gamut, points which have been addressed over and over (ABX is too short/too long/wrong equipment/wrong test signals/subjects were insensitive etc.)

 

krabapple,

 

I was at the first demo of David Clark's famous AES published ABX tests with ArnyK, and other SMWTMS folks. I was not impressed, but mystified, and went on over the years to listen and think about other examples of these tests, promises, and problems, looking for some sign that they might be improved, might tell us something about the hearing of 'golden ears', and regular folk, performance of our gear, etc. All the while collecting plenty of 'sighted' listening experiences that didn't sit all that well with the DBT/ABX claims.

 

I am of a mind to value such 'objective' tests, but the tests have continued to be problematic and simply a side-show to the larger audio and audiophile industry. That is, aside from a few amateurs and armchair HIFI-ers that love them and seem to look down their noses at anyone who doesn't bow down to the obviousness of their efficacy. (I wonder if a lot of these folks have an attitude that humans being are innately corrupt and require strong rules - something ones sees a lot of in some political and religious persuasions

 

We could engage in dueling anecdotes, lovely little logical threads all wrapped in pretty bows, make long pro and con lists, or call each other names, BUT, to me, it all boils down to:

 

What significant contribution has DBT/ABX made to the world of audiophilia in the 35, or so, years they have around ?

 

None that I can see... Yawn...

[mmerrill99]

That very much depends on whether you're interested in what you're actually hearing, or in the overall experience you're having at a certain moment, which will necessarily be influenced by additional information like the fact that you think you're listening to $1000 cables.

You seem to be confused about auditory perception as are so many who take your line - there is no such difference between "actually hearing" & "overall experience". All our perceptions are edited down/summarised versions of the signals that have been sensed at the sense organ. We don't "hear" like a microphone "hears"

"

For starters, there are not one but two compressors working in the outer and middle ear, with different time constants. Total gain reduction can be up to 40 dB. Yet we are hardly ever aware of those compressors working. Also, there’s a dynamic multiband equalizer/compressor in the inner ear that dramatically varies the frequency response of our hearing as a function of loudness level. This behavior is described by the so-called Equal Loudness Contours.

 

This all represents some pretty heavy-duty signal-processing. We aren’t talking 1/4 of dB here, half a dB there, we’re talking some major changes (like 60 Hz. being rolled off 20 dB over a gain change of 40 dB). And we barely notice it!

 

But our ears do, somehow, seem to be able to perceive a remarkable range of stuff. But what we need to keep in mind is this: WHAT WE HEAR AIN’T WHAT CAME IN OUR EARS!"

[Bystander]

there is no such difference between "actually hearing" & "overall experience". All our perceptions are edited down/summarised versions of the signals that have been sensed at the sense organ.

The question is whether additional knowledge gained by senses other than hearing will help you more accurately evaluate the sound quality. If you're 'hearing' a higher sound quality because you know that that is what you should be hearing (however real you may judge that perception to be), is that not a less accurate evaluation of the actual sound quality than if your knowledge did not influence you one way or another?

[mmerrill99]

I would in no way disagree with that. But whatever effect the sight of an expensive hifi system has on your listening experience (or the knowledge that you're listening to 'Audio-Nirvana-HQ-Perfect-Plus' instead of 'iTunes'), it will not help you hear any more details in the music than if you had no such knowledge.

And you fail to recognise that eliminating one factor does not mean that you are now getting the truth - we are continually being influenced in many diverse ways which affect our perceptions. Hence the need, as Jud has explained, to live with uncertainty & enjoy the possible mistakes we will probably make along the way.

 

As for differences in the audio quality of software players, I'm reminded of this little story

What do you think this story says? That people are fooling themselves that software player A sounds better than player B? Or that people can stumble on something that sounds better without intending or designing to do so?

 

SBGK, who posts here, has a software player, MQN, with open source code, in which he investigates changes to the render code & has correlated code changes to sound changes. I wouldn't say that he is stumbling on code changes (some are unexpected) but nobody has a good theory as to why the code changes affect the sound.

Point being that without the knowledge of how auditory perception works, audio is a bit of a guessing game about what provides a better audio illusion.

[mmerrill99]

The question is whether additional knowledge gained by senses other than hearing will help you more accurately evaluate the sound quality. If you're 'hearing' a higher sound quality because you know that that is what you should be hearing (however real you may judge that perception to be), is that not a less accurate evaluation of the actual sound quality than if your knowledge did not influence you one way or another?

 

The corollary also applies - do some tests (which don't involve normal listening approaches) introducing other factors which interfere with our perceptions & therefore the results? Without controls that test if this is the case, I find them untrustworthy.

[Bystander]

And you fail to recognise that eliminating one factor does not mean that you are now getting the truth

 

You're getting closer to it anyway. Again, depending on what you're interested in.

 

What do you think this story says? That people are fooling themselves that software player A sounds better than player B? Or that people can stumble on something that sounds better without intending or designing to do so?

Honestly, I don't know. Per Occam's Razor, in this particular case the first answer seems more likely to me. Even today, most people (regardless of whether they've ever blindly listened to it or compared it to other players) seem to 'know' that iTunes sounds bad. Because that's what people are saying.

 

The corollary also applies - do some tests (which don't involve normal listening approaches) introducing other factors which interfere with our perceptions & therefore the results? Without controls that test if this is the case, I find them untrustworthy.

Sure.

[mmerrill99]

The question is whether additional knowledge gained by senses other than hearing will help you more accurately evaluate the sound quality. If you're 'hearing' a higher sound quality because you know that that is what you should be hearing (however real you may judge that perception to be), is that not a less accurate evaluation of the actual sound quality than if your knowledge did not influence you one way or another?

To answer your question in another way - one can gain additional knowledge in what certain distortions sound like & this will likely help you more accurately evaluate sound quality. Without this knowledge you may well have missed a distortion present in the sound.

I've also heard of situations where the audibility of audio watermarking was being evaluated & they played the difference track along side the watermarked track in order to more accurately hear into the sound

[Bystander]

ne can gain additional knowledge in what certain distortions sound like & this will likely help you more accurately evaluate sound quality. Without this knowledge you may well have missed a distortion present in the sound.

True. But that kind of knowledge doesn't lead you to expect something to sound better or worse for which you should have no expectation as to its sound quality before you've even listened to it. That's very different from telling me that I should look out for distortions in the first sample, but not in the second one.