Audibility of digital reconstruction filters

[Paul R]

Okay, taking your theory as true, what accounts for the fact that different filters produce a different sound? After all, the only difference between filters is post, pre, or no ringing, at least as far as your experiment and derived theory go.

 

Good science has to be able to explain every phenomena. Please do not go into the tired old "expectation bias" stuff, a good solid well backed up hypothesis would be welcome. Elsewise, this is just trolling and does belong somewhere else - like the gasbag forums.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

(*sigh*) People can and do hear a difference. That is as close to being an established fact as it is possible for anything to be. Many of us hear a difference when we change the filter ringing parameters.

 

The biggest hypothesis made here is that people are not hearing a difference, or that it is not possible for people to hear a difference. Or more perniciously, that people are imagining such differences due to expectation bias or whatever else you want to call it.

 

Such an extraordinary hypothesis requires extraordinary proof, and would be much better served on the gasbag forums or other places dedicated to such hypothesis. Most people here are more interested in what they hear, than in what someone else thinks they can or cannot hear.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

Science would say first, "Is there a difference?" To answer that, sadly, the experiment must eliminate biases of all kinds. Once established that there is a real and repeatably detectable difference, a hypothesis or three might be formed, then a proof sought.

 

Ah. If only that were true and it was that simple.

 

 

"Good Science" must by definition take into account the errors in the entire experimental system. Unfortunately, some of those errors include bias in observation, but there are many others as well. If as many errors as possible in the system are to be accounted for, then influence of biases must be included.

 

We could present hypotheses all day, but that would be less than satisfying. A hypotheses is only a beginning, and the scientist must go on to experimentally prove it. Much of this work has been done, though not published in main-stream press.

[Paul R]

(*sigh*)

 

You are welcome to your own opinions. Fact's won't change all that quickly.

 

I would be interested in your opinion as in "Yes, I tried modifying filter settings and I could hear a difference. I do not think this is caused directly by ringing in the filter, I think it is ... "

 

 

 

...except that's not all you're changing...

 

 

 

Huh. OK, hit the nerve there, didn't I?

 

I never said, "people are not hearing a difference, or that it is not possible for people to hear a difference. Or more perniciously, that people are imagining such differences due to expectation bias". Perhaps a re-read? All I'm saying is we need to know for certain they are hearing a difference. Is that so unreasonable? I also said, if they do hear a difference, we can hypothesize as to why, then go find out for sure. Is that also so unreasonable?

 

I cited some references that showed a few things that have been proven to not be as audible as we thought. Is that the problem?

 

Look, kids, you hear what you hear. I do get a bit tired of betting shot at just for trying to apply a bit of science and reason to find out why.

 

 

 

I certainly agree with that. But in the quest for audio nirvana, wouldn't it benefit everyone to know what sounds better and why, that tech can be integrated into more stuff?

 

But if it makes everyone happy, I will gladly accept the "evil scientist" label.

 

...and down I go...down my own personal rabbit hole.

[Paul R]

It depends a lot on what you are trying to test. Do people hear the difference? Yes. Does that mean the difference was caused by purely physical factors? Probably not. But in either case, people are hearing a difference.

 

The idea of exploring the audibility of filters is interesting. But how one goes about it is also important.

 

I think a more precise way to say it that "people claim to perceive a difference". Can they really, well that needs more than just asserting that people can actually hear a difference.

[Paul R]

Well Dennis - if you contend that the only part of hearing you can measure or predict is the physical part, how do you ever intend to get a real answer to your question? Or is the intent just to aggravate people with pseudo-science?

 

Ignoring data about an issue can very easily lead one to incorrect conclusions. I think it has already been pointed out that people can hear changes in ringing settings on filters, and that there are many more possible factors that can or do make audible changes. Yet you seem to ignore this and go on assuming you have proven there are no measurable audible differences. Not even asking how to duplicate the changes other people report.

 

You definitely must be a member in good standing of your local JumpToConclusionsWithoutProperDataOrUnderstanding Club. Perhaps a founding member. I wish I could better understand what your agenda is - because it sure looks to me you started this thread in another attempt to "prove" something you believe and convert the unwashed asses.

 

Tell you what though - I am out of it. Every person has the right to go to hell in his own way. Enjoy the ride.

 

Paul

 

 

Well Paul, if your version of people hear differences is yes, and probably not caused by purely physical factors the obvious question is are there any physical factors? How much of non-physical factors are involved if some are physical and some are not. The only part of changing filter parameters that can be applied across different people are the physical factors. One cannot predict what a filter change would sound like if the difference heard is part physical and part non-physical.

 

BTW, do they have a local society of sophistry in your town, and are you the president?

[Paul R]

We should probably clarify something here. When you say, "Does that mean the difference was caused by purely physical factors? Probably not.", are you saying that the difference may be caused by something that is not physical?

 

What would "not purely physical" include? Are you referring to something metaphysical, spiritual, etc.? As a reference, sound, the hearing mechanism, transducers, and associated electrical energy is all physical. Are you going outside of that domain?

 

I'm not trying to trap you, and no judgements, but it may change the tack here just a bit to know...

 

LOL! Of course I am not referring to metaphysical effects or the like, though sometimes I do think there may be a ghost in the machine. Non physical the way I used it was imprecise- pretty much I was referring to the software generating the signal.

 

Of those I think that the software makes the most difference since it is modifying the signal of course. And it s what people modify to create changes they hear. If you ignore that you wind up with just another bits is bits argument. Admittedly I should have been more precise and laid but that logic chain but it is an old and well worn argument. And leads to people making silly claims all over the place- on both sides. It will end with everyone dissatisfied and mildly disaffected. Everyone knows a part of the picture and nobody nosing the whole thing.

 

Paul