If it's measurable, is it audible?

[4est]

Oh, and so this is yet another rhetorical thread designed to stir up the masses. Just what this forum needs...

And the point of the thread Peter, so thank you for the response.

 

I purposely left out a 'maybe' or 'possibly' because I was looking more for predisposition for acceptance of an unknown empirically.......and that's ok, nothing wrong with a yes response here or a general yes to 'anything is possible' position. If one were to reply yes, the understanding would be simply be if there's a change in electrical value, signal, intensity, whatever......someone, somewhere under ideal conditions should be able to hear it.

[mayhem13]

Oh, and so this is yet another rhetorical thread designed to stir up the masses. Just what this forum needs...

 

......and that's your conclusion?.........surprising.

[Boris75]

Oh, and so this is yet another rhetorical thread designed to stir up the masses. Just what this forum needs...

 

I much like these subjectivists-vs-objectivists discussions, though my preference goes to discussing high-res and other music releases.

[Daudio]

If you can measure a difference, would you conclude that it's possible to hear the difference? The key word is 'conclude' .....

 

Conclude ?? Conclude = assume, presume, surmise, suppose, SWAG, (or just plain) Guess !

 

What a ridiculous poll ! (IMNSHO)

[mayhem13]

Conclude ?? Conclude = assume, presume, surmise, suppose, SWAG, (or just plain) Guess !

 

What a ridiculous poll ! (IMNSHO)

 

Why?....please enlighten us?

[sandyk]

I much like these subjectivists-vs-objectivists discussions, though my preference goes to discussing high-res and other music releases.

Boris75

It would appear that you are wasting your money on high res discs and downloads, as all you need is a 16/44.1 CD or download with the same improved mastering as the high resolution version. (grin) The 16/44.1 DL will almost certainly cost you less, and the DL time will be way less. You might even be able to go to a cheaper ISP plan! WOW !!!

 

[3. HiRes or above Redbook- I believe what people hear is the improved mastering and not the bit rate/depth - Mayhem13

[Paul R]

Maybe I have lost the track of this conversation entirely.

If it's measurable, is it audible?

No.

 

But that answer, while absolutely true, is very misleading. For example, I (or rather an appropriately equipped lab!) can measure the spin on a single quark. Can't hear it though. Or one can measure the angular velocity or the distance to a star. Can't hear those things either.

 

Restricting the discussion to audio, the answer is still no. You cannot hear, for example, the length, width, and height of an amplifier, though you can easily measure it.

 

Restricting it further to things that could possibly cause an audible difference, the answers quickly get grey. Can you measure the insulation on a speaker cable? Yes. Can you hear the insulation on a speaker cable? Maybe, under some circumstances.

 

Are there limits beyond which nobody will be able to hear some audio value that can be measured?

 

Sure there are. Nobody can hear a 50khz signal. Does that mean if a complex signal has a 50khz component you won't notice if the 50khz component is filtered out of the signal? Not necessarily. Everything from the filter itself introducing new noise to the response of the amplifier not having to reproduce a 50khz signal may - in some way or another - be audible to a listener.

 

I don't think that this is particularly controversial, but anyone who really wants to is welcome to disagree with that.

 

-Paul

[jhwalker]

Maybe I have lost the track of this conversation entirely.

If it's measurable, is it audible?

No.

 

But that answer, while absolutely true, is very misleading. For example, I (or rather an appropriately equipped lab!) can measure the spin on a single quark. Can't hear it though. Or one can measure the angular velocity or the distance to a star. Can't hear those things either.

 

Restricting the discussion to audio, the answer is still no. You cannot hear, for example, the length, width, and height of an amplifier, though you can easily measure it.

 

Restricting it further to things that could possibly cause an audible difference, the answers quickly get grey. Can you measure the insulation on a speaker cable? Yes. Can you hear the insulation on a speaker cable? Maybe, under some circumstances.

 

Are there limits beyond which nobody will be able to hear some audio value that can be measured?

 

Sure there are. Nobody can hear a 50khz signal. Does that mean if a complex signal has a 50khz component you won't notice if the 50khz component is filtered out of the signal? Not necessarily. Everything from the filter itself introducing new noise to the response of the amplifier not having to reproduce a 50khz signal may - in some way or another - be audible to a listener.

 

I don't think that this is particularly controversial, but anyone who really wants to is welcome to disagree with that.

 

-Paul

 

Exactly - there are *many* components (even just of sound waves) that could easily be measured but not heard at all - the 50kHz signal you mentioned would be one. We can build instruments that are vastly more sensitive than our ears.

 

The other way 'round (i.e., if it can be heard, can it be measured?) I'm also pretty clear on - the answer is *yes*. Maybe not right now, or with the tools we're currently using and the properties we're currently measuring, but our perception of sound is very clearly related to physical phenomena (i.e., movement of sound waves through air and various interactions with physical space). If it can be heard, it can potentially be measured.

[Paul R]

Exactly - there are *many* components (even just of sound waves) that could easily be measured but not heard at all - the 50kHz signal you mentioned would be one. We can build instruments that are vastly more sensitive than our ears.

 

The other way 'round (i.e., if it can be heard, can it be measured?) I'm also pretty clear on - the answer is *yes*. Maybe not right now, or with the tools we're currently using and the properties we're currently measuring, but our perception of sound is very clearly related to physical phenomena (i.e., movement of sound waves through air and various interactions with physical space). If it can be heard, it can potentially be measured.

 

Oh yes, I agree. I would further venture to say that if it can be heard then in some way or another we absolutely can measure it. Today, right now, with existing technology. But- I am not so confident we totally understand what we measure or even that we are paying attention to all the important measurements.

 

What is the measure of "soundstage"? Phase difference? Probably, but I can *not* point to a good reference work that describes exactly which parameters affect which properties of a stereo soundstage.

 

When you enter the realm of USB cables, power cables, and shakti stones - well - I am quite lost there. Audible differences in USB cables seem to defy explanation, in power cables make no sense, and in shakti stones?

 

Yikes!

 

Which is not to say they do not make an audible difference, or that difference cannot be measured, just what?

 

 

-Paul

[Audio_ELF]

WRT the last two posts by Mr Walker and Mr Robinson...

 

I suspect that there are things (within audio) that while we can currently measure, we are not yet able to correctly analyse.

 

That is that any thing causing an audible change can be recorded; but being able to analyse and compare those recordings may be where things fall down.

 

Eloise

[sandyk]

Are you sure you mean Mr. Robinson and not the unusually named variety of chook that you mentioned earlier ?

[Audio_ELF]

Are you sure you mean Mr. Robinson and not the unusually named variety of chook that you mentioned earlier ?

Sorry Mr Raulerson of course... I've obviously been watching too many Dustin Hoffman films :-)

[sandyk]

BTW, you did raise a smile when I saw that the name of one of your chook varieties sounded quite like the name of a certain female recording engineer.

[Allan F]

Sorry Mr Raulerson of course... I've obviously been watching too many Dustin Hoffman films :-)

 

I'm sure Ms. Hoffman wouldn't mind.

[Paul R]

Well said!

 

WRT the last two posts by Mr Walker and Mr Robinson...

 

I suspect that there are things (within audio) that while we can currently measure, we are not yet able to correctly analyse.

 

That is that any thing causing an audible change can be recorded; but being able to analyse and compare those recordings may be where things fall down.

 

Eloise

[esldude]

In regards to measuring something and not knowing how to analyze it, can anyone give a few examples?

 

I am not disagreeing btw, just wonder what those might be.

 

Also, I would be less convinced by for example saying, USB cables sound different and we don't know why or interconnects sound different and we don't know why. Because the issue is whether or not there is anything to hear. Without measurements and analysis the normal way to test that is a blind test. Otherwise, there may be nothing actually audibly different about it.

 

The very best example would be something that has tested positive with a blind test, and we don't have any correlating or corroborating measurements.

 

Please also note, I am not saying everything without a blind test isn't real. Just that we have a gray area between measurable and audible differences vs unmeasurable and audible differences. We know humans hear differences some of the time when there isn't one. So there is this in between area to be careful about. Just because lots of people think they hear it by itself isn't sufficient to convince at least me or other skeptically minded audiophiles.

[Paul R]

I don't mean this as insulting, but I was surprised you need examples. I actually was thinking about this when I mentioned angular momentum before, but did not elaborate.

 

How long do you think astronomers were measuring parallax and color spectra of stars before we figured out how to use those measurements to determine how far away those stars were from Earth? It was quite a few years, and a most interesting story.

 

I do not think it appropriate to offer you examples from audio - you probably know more of them than I do and I can think of a few off the top of my head.

 

As for the other opinions you expressed in that post, they are your opinions, and you have to deal with them.

[esldude]

I don't mean this as insulting, but I was surprised you need examples. I actually was thinking about this when I mentioned angular momentum before, but did not elaborate.

 

How long do you think astronomers were measuring parallax and color spectra of stars before we figured out how to use those measurements to determine how far away those stars were from Earth? It was quite a few years, and a most interesting story.

 

I do not think it appropriate to offer you examples from audio - you probably know more of them than I do and I can think of a few off the top of my head.

 

As for the other opinions you expressed in that post, they are your opinions, and you have to deal with them.

 

Yes the story about determing how far stars were from earth was interesting. Even more so when some appeared to come outside the milky way, which at the time was thought the totality of all that was.

 

Yes, I can probably come up with a few examples, but I already know those. Hence the question of what else is out there that maybe I had not thought of myself.

 

The opinions expressed are mine, and are very relevant at least in regards to this question for myself.

 

So Paul, other than not agreeing with my opinions, and not providing any examples just what was your reason for posting?

[sandyk]

The very best example would be something that has tested positive with a blind test, and we don't have any correlating or corroborating measurements.

 

You already have one of those, but you will not accept it, simply because you refuse to accept it is possible.

You prefer to suggest that the person doing the test is either incompetent in his day job, despite being a highly qualified E.E, acoustical consultant, and even a speaker designer, perhaps better known in that field than the member here, or is a straight out liar. If somebody came up with another example in the audio field you would still refuse to accept it, so what was your reason for posting ?

[Paul R]

I did provide you with examples Dennis. Just not ones you can argue with based upon your stated opinions. I really don't feel like arguing, and even less so being mousetrapped into arguments about the same old thing.

 

Obviously, I don't agree with the opinions you are so wont to state like facts, but they are relevant to you and I respect that. Despite knowing how much it aggravates some folks around here when you do that.

 

Why do you insist on aggravating people? The only reason I can fathom is you want to stir up trouble? I hope in this case, I am just suffering from lack of imagination.

 

-Paul

 

Yes the story about determing how far stars were from earth was interesting. Even more so when some appeared to come outside the milky way, which at the time was thought the totality of all that was.

 

Yes, I can probably come up with a few examples, but I already know those. Hence the question of what else is out there that maybe I had not thought of myself.

 

The opinions expressed are mine, and are very relevant at least in regards to this question for myself.

 

So Paul, other than not agreeing with my opinions, and not providing any examples just what was your reason for posting?

[esldude]

You already have one of those, but you will not accept it, simply because you refuse to accept it is possible.

You prefer to suggest that the person doing the test is either incompetent in his day job, despite being a highly qualified E.E, acoustical consultant, and even a speaker designer, perhaps better known in that field than the member here, or is a straight out liar. If somebody came up with another example in the audio field you would still refuse to accept it, so what was your reason for posting ?

 

Your claim is very tiring to read yet again. The test if for no other reason is suggestive only. That reason is insufficient number of results. 6 is too small a number to draw any conclusions from. So no your example does not pass muster.

[sandyk]

Your claim is very tiring to read yet again. The test if for no other reason is suggestive only. That reason is insufficient number of results. 6 is too small a number to draw any conclusions from. So no your example does not pass muster.

In your opinion. Your continued insistence that every single subjective post in this forum is incorrect is even more tiring, not just to me, but many other members, but you already know that, as quite a few members have told you that over and over again !

Now you are even questioning the validity of MANY 100s (possibly in 4 digits ?) of posts, and numerous threads in this very forum over quite a period of time, about audible differences between USB cables, even when quite a few members come up with similar rankings of certain cables.

 

The test if for no other reason is suggestive only.

 

So you admit that the results do suggest that possibility ? In that case why don't you and your fellow travellers who claim technical expertise , get off your collective tails and do further investigations instead of just mouthing off ?

I have already agreed to co-operate with nominated qualified people this end.

[esldude]

in your opinion. Your continued insistence that every single subjective post in this forum is incorrect is even more tiring, not just to me, but many other members, but you already know that, as quite a few members have told you that over and over again !

 

That isn't an accurate portrayal of my opinion.

 

 

So you admit that the results do suggest that possibility ? In that case why don't you and your fellow travellers who claim technical expertise , get off your collective tails and do further investigations instead of just mouthing off ?

I have already agreed to co-operate with nominated qualified people this end.

 

 

The results of the blind test are suggestive if they were blind etc. We of course still don't know the details. Just to avoid that whole hassle, it still isn't enough due to insufficient sample size. Plain and simple basic statistics. Nothing controversial about that whatsoever.

 

Why don't I do further investigations?

 

Firstly, I don't hear the effect.

 

Secondly, the hypothesis offered by you is impossible. Making any technical investigation problematic. The only recourse with your hypothesis is a blind test to show it is real. One needs have no idea how to show it is for real with blind testing. But done with proper controls and adequate sample sizes. Even then I am at a loss as to how it could occur.

 

A modification of the hypothesis which still fit the results you observe would be a big help if possible. John Swenson suggested some. Backing up a bit, observing the effects you hear, casting a wider net, and seeing if something beyond PS quality at ripping also fits what you are observing would be a worthwhile path. Your idea of what causes this seems simply impossible. So something else is happening if the effect is real. I nor others can be of much help offering suggestions because it has never been clear what operations with the file destroy or cover up the effect you hear. If there is something here, it isn't quite what you think. Starting over and paying attention to details might uncover a real cause.

[sandyk]

Ho Hum. More of the same, of the same, as you dish out to every subjective report in this forum.

You aren't satisfied as to how M.C. conducted the tests, you continually dispute the results, yet you refuse to ask him how they were performed.

I have never stated any definite cause other than that improved power gives improved results. Why is that so hard to believe ? The cleaner and the lower impedance of the power supply MUST result in less interaction with other areas of the computer for example. We already know why you don't hear the effect. You are incapable of hearing the many different subjective things that others report in other areas as well. I would suggest that it is simply a HUGE dose of expectation bias that prevents you from hearing these things. You don't want to hear them, so you don't. Simples !

Again, I suggest that you and your fellow travellers arrange to put my reports to the test instead of all the continual negativity from yourself and several other members. I have spent 1,000s of hours with uploads of comparison ,wav files and other demonstrations, including sending USB memory sticks and comparison CDs overseas. yet you simply sit behind a keyboard questioning results when these things are so damn easy to demonstrate directly, even to another EE who didn't believe such things possible.

[gmgraves]

Recent developments in threads bring forth an interesting topic for discussion. If you can measure a difference, would you conclude that it's possible to hear the difference? The key word is 'conclude' .....where every measurable difference must be accompanied by an audible change.

 

Short answer: Not necessarily. For instance: Two DACs - One has an noise floor of -115 dB, the second DAC -123 dB. This difference can be measured, but it cannot be heard. Why? Both noise figures are below the limits of human audibility so, neither can be heard.

 

As an example, I have measured speaker response differences of 2db or less in the range of 800hz-3khz but can't detect it during listening. Would you conclude that I should have been able to?....or someone highly trained with the most resolving system can?

 

Perhaps in a DBT with playback levels matched to within less than a quarter of a dB, you could hear a frequency response anomaly of 2 dB over a band of frequencies, but normally, given room acoustics, and the lack of a formal, precision overall level matching between the two speakers in question, I'd say that it's unlikely that you would notice a difference on music. If you swept the frequency band in question with an audio oscillator, you might hear the difference, but again, the levels at say 1KHz, would have to be matched to less than a quarter of a dB. Without that match, any difference you hear would likely be from the overall level mismatch and not the frequency response anomaly for which you are searching.